Site news

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH WOMAN BY PERSON IN “POWER” EVEN WITH HER CONSENT SHOULD NOT GO UNPUNISHED UNDER SECTION 376 (C) OF IP

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH WOMAN BY PERSON IN “POWER” EVEN WITH HER CONSENT SHOULD NOT GO UNPUNISHED UNDER SECTION 376 (C) OF IP
by System Administrator - Tuesday, 1 June 2021, 6:27 PM
 

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: According to new amendment 2013 under section  376 (C) of IPC person in power is barred to do Sexual intercourse with a woman even with her consent as Consensual intercourse by a person in power is crime under section 376 (C) as it is treated as non consensual intercourse even if it appears as consensual sex if woman files compliant and provides proof of intercourse and she appears to have met him seeking some favors' to help her or he has promised to help her. Sexual intercourse with woman by person in power or public servant even with her consent should not go unpunished under section  376 (C) of IPC. According to criminal law experts "Sexual intercourse with a woman above 18 years of age is rape if it is under any of the seven descriptions given in Section 375 of the IPC (non-consensual sexual intercourse) but under any circumstances person in power cannot take advantage of consensual sex provision under 376 (C) as consent obtained by person in power is not treated as consent at all. Consensual intercourse by a person in power is crime under section 376 (C) as it is treated as non consensual intercourse even if it appears as consensual sex. So accused cannot get benefit of consensual sex. "Person in power has certain public responsibilities cannot behave like ordinary person. Ordinary person can take advantage of consensual sex provision .The complainant has water tight and airtight case against the accused as reportedly he has confessed the crimethis attracted punishment under section  376 (C) of IPC. Wherefore police need to file charge sheet in this case and take necessary action as per law. The accused has filed a separate case where he has filed Bald FIR and not able to adduce any evidence of any honey trap or black mailing or any evidence of payments made by accused and need further investigation. Both cases are different and need not be clubbed .Police need to handle both cases separately. Clubbing of cases will defeat the justice and equity and it will defeat the purpose of enactment of section  376 (C) of IPC .

What does the provision say? : Section 376C criminalizes sexual intercourse by a person in authority. It states that anybody in a position of authority or fiduciary relationship, who "abuses such position or fiduciary relationship to induce or seduce any woman either in his custody or under his charge or present in the premises to have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”.This means the provision criminalizes the abuse of position by a person in authority, if he "induces or seduces” any woman to have sexual intercourse with him. It adds that "such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape”, would be punishable with imprisonment of five to 10 years, and a fine. Person in authority' includes a public servant, a superintendent of a jail, remand home or any other place of custody, and the management or staff of a hospital .The provision was included through an amendment in 2013, on the basis of recommendations made by the Justice J.S. Verma committee after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.

Strict liability' offence: According criminal law experts , the provision ensures that even with consent, such sexual intercourse would be punishable."Section 376C was framed only with a view that people who are in authority or in a fiduciary relationship and indulge in sexual intercourse involving acts as mentioned in Section 375 A to D, even if with her consent, would be committing an offence under section 376 C and can be punished for five to 10 years,” .. Criminal law experts pointed out that a similar provision exists in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Section 376C,  fixes "strict liability” on those in such positions of authority. The strict liability theory holds people responsible for injuries arising out of certain activities, no matter what the situation. We request Police officers of Special  investigation team to take necessary action as per law in Jarkiholi Case in which he is accused .