New Delhi: A court in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly has convicted a 21-year-old woman under Section 195 (giving or fabricating false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, after she retracted her kidnapping and rape allegations against a man in her cross-examination during trial.
Additional sessions judge Gyanendra Tripathi directed her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years, six months, and eight days — adding up to 1,653 days, the time the man she had accused spent in jail. The court also levied a fine of Rs 5,88,822.47 lakh. In case she isn’t able to pay the fine, she will have to undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment, the court said.
Section 195 says that anybody who gives or fabricates false evidence with the intent to procure conviction for an offence punishable with life imprisonment or a jail term of over 7 years shall be punished with imprisonment similar to the offence that they intended the accused to be punished under.
While this isn’t a common occurence, a few courts have in the past ordered perjury proceedings against women for filing ‘false’ rape cases. For instance, last year, a Madhya Pradesh court convicted a 45-year-old woman and sentenced her to a 10-year jail term for lodging a false rape case.
In the Bareilly case, the court calculated the fine amount based on the daily wage fixed for unskilled labour by the Uttar Pradesh government, calculating the remuneration the man would have received for the 1,653 days he spent in jail. This fine amount is to be released as compensation for the accused under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court said this case indicates a “very serious situation for the entire society”.
“Although it is completely appropriate and expected for the government, administration, and court to ensure the safety of women through relevant policies and laws, it does not mean that women who take unfair advantage of it will have the right to attack the interests of men…Apart from this, the actions of proven guilty women, like the one presented in the case, are likely to cause harm to the real victims of the society,” the judge said.
While the court was of the view that the case deserved harsh punishment, it also said that her age and marital status may require a sympathetic approach and that the punishment should strike a balance between these aspects.
The woman’s husband had submitted before the court that she retracted her allegations because after they were married, he was troubled by court summons and urged his wife to end the case soon.
However, the court refused to accept his submission. The woman was found guilty on 3 May and sentenced on 4 May.
Also Read: How ‘Seven Angry Women’, an Insta handle, opened a can of worms at Gujarat National Law University
The complaint
The woman’s mother had filed a complaint against the man in September 2019. The woman was 15 years old then. Based on this, an FIR was lodged against him under sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code. In her statement under Section 164 of CrPC on 18 September 2019, she told the magistrate that the man kidnapped her, took her to Delhi, and kept her locked in a room for six days. She alleged that he then raped her multiple times.
While she supported the prosecution case during the examination-in-chief in October last year, she denied the allegations during the cross-examination on 8 February and claimed that she had made the allegations under the pressure of police officers and her family members. She told the court her mother made her write the allegations because she disliked the man and that she had given a false statement on oath. This, the court noted, was punishable under Section 195 of the IPC, and proceedings were initiated against her the same day.
A complaint under Section 195 of IPC was then lodged against the woman in the court of the chief judicial magistrate, Bareilly. The case was then referred to the sessions court for trial, and charges were framed against her in March.
‘Undue benefits’
In its order passed on 3 May, the court now observed that rape victims’ allegations under Section 164 of the CrPC are recorded in utmost secrecy by a female magistrate in camera, while ensuring that the victim is not under any fear or pressure. It said that if the woman was under pressure from the investigator, she could have informed the female magistrate concerned.
“In the opinion of the court, it is not logically possible to be subjected to the fear or pressure of the investigator in the process of recording the statement before the lady judicial magistrate under Section 164 CrPC,” it observed.
The court also noted that she could have refuted the allegations in her examination-in-chief in October last year, but she did not do so. It pointed out that while she supported the prosecution story in October 2023, she made statements “completely contrary to the prosecution story” four months later.
“Therefore, it would be justified to hold here that during the said period of 4 months, the victim had made statements in cross-examination in favour of [the man] while earning illegal money in the form of undue benefits,” the court then observed.
UP lawyer demanded life term
During the sentencing hearing on 4 May, the woman’s lawyer told the court that she did not have any criminal history, and had not filed such a case against anybody else. He also urged the court to take her age and marital status into consideration.
However, the lawyer for the UP government argued that the woman had committed a “serious crime”, because of which an innocent person had spent over four years in jail, and had to face the stigma of being arrested on rape charges. He then demanded a punishment that could act as an example for women who take unfair advantage of provisions made specifically for the protection of women to extort money.
The government lawyer then demanded life imprisonment — the maximum punishment for rape — for the woman.