Read Time: 08 minutes

"Rape is an offence against the society and it is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle," recently observed the Andhra Pradesh High Court while refusing to set aside an order of conviction in a rape case.

The Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari was dealing with one application of a rape victim whereby she had sought High Court's permission to compromise the matter with accused. Rejecting her plea, the bench noted, 

"The concept of compromise, under no circumstances, can be thought of as there cannot be a compromise or settlement against the honour and dignity of a woman."

Consequently, the bench held that on the basis of the compromise/settlement between the convict and the victim, the order of conviction could not be set aside. Court also stressed that the convicts could not be acquitted of the offences for which there is conviction, by allowing the appeal on the ground of a settlement.

Key Facts

The two convicts namely Kankipati Kalyan Babu and Kankipati Vijayakumari were found guilty under Indian Penal Code sections 376 (Rape), 342, 417, 420 and sections 109 read with sec. 376, 342 read with sec. 34 respectively by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada for committing rape upon the victim/ main applicant girl. They were convicted and sentenced vide the judgment dated October 23, 2017. 

However, three years later in 2021, during the hearing of the appeal against Session court's decision, a joint application was moved by both the parties i.e. the victim and the accused persons. In the application, the victim had stated that she and the accused persons were classmates and there had been a love affair between her and one of the accused.

She had also asserted that due to some misunderstandings relating to the issue of marriage, she had given a report to the police which had resulted in the conviction of the accused. Therefore, she had pleaded before the court to set aside accused persons' conviction order so that they could put an end to the unnecessary ill feelings and could lead a peaceful life in the locality.

Crucial arguments

Against this backdrop, the counsels for both the accused and victim had argued before the high court that the involved criminal appeal could also be decided by setting aside the conviction and sentence order and the convicts could be acquitted in view of the compromise.

The counsels had argued that it was a case of a love affair and there was a promise to marry, therefore, it was not a case of rape. Mainly, they had contended that the offence under Section 376 IPC is purely personal in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction could have been set aside on the ground of compromise.

Court's conclusion

The high court referred to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Madan Lal (2015), wherein the Supreme Court had held that rape or attempt to rape are crimes against the body of a woman and there cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most.

In pursuance of the same, high court concluded that since in the instant case the appellants had been convicted of a heinous offence by the trial Court, therefore any question of sparing them on mere compromise did not arise.

"Such a plea would require consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances to arrive at a conclusion if there was promise to marry at all, if such promise was false since its inception or it was a true promise but due to certain reasons could not be fulfilled or physical relationship was on such promise and it was voluntary or under some misconception of fact, so as to constitute or not an offence of rape. This can be done, if occasion arises, only while deciding the appeal on merits," noted the high court as it refused to set aside the conviction and rejected the application filed in the appeal.

Case Title: Rentapalli Anand Mary v. Rentapalli Anand Mary and Ors