Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently upheld the conviction of a man who raped her mother-in-law.

“It is to be noted that the appellant, who is the son-in-law of the prosecutrix, has committed this shameful act with his mother in-law, who is of the age of his own mother. The appellant defiled the womanhood of the prosecutrix,” the order reads.

A single judge bench of the high court at Nagpur comprising Justice GA Sanap was hearing an appeal filed by a man against the order of Sessions Court convicting the man for raping her 55-year-old mother-in-law.

The Sessions Court convicted the man in March 2022 and was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment against which he filed an appeal.

The complaint filed by the mother-in-law stated that her son-in-law and daughter were divorced. The complaint explained that the man visited the victim and asked her to reunite him with her daughter. On their way, the man got drunk and raped the victim thrice.

The victim then informed her daughter about the incident after which an FIR came to be filed. The man argued that the physical relationship was consensual.

The high court in order noted that the victim would not have imagined in the wildest of dreams that her son-in-law would commit such a deplorable act with her.

“The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the rape on her. It is to be noted that the appellant took advantage of his relations with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix would not have imagined in the wildest of dreams that her son-in-law would commit such a deplorable act with her. In this case, therefore, I do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution,” the judgement reads.   

The bench also observed that if the victim wanted to involve the appellant in a false case, then she would have invented another story and she would not have allowed such a direct attack on her character.

“It is to be noted that the defence of the appellant that, for the sake of taking revenge, this false case was created cannot be believed. It is to be noted that if the prosecutrix wanted to involve the appellant in a false case, then she would have invented another story. She would not have allowed such a direct attack on her character. The prosecutrix, a mother of five children, would be required to carry this stigma throughout her life,” the judgement states.