Case Law

Golam Ahmed vs State (2012) 64 DLR 91

Facts of Golam Ahmed vs State

As an informant, Sultana Lucy filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Sunamganj Police Station on 3-1-2009 against the accused-appellant named Golam Ahmed, alleging that she had a deep affair with the accused-appellant. On 23-2-2002 at 9 p.m. in their rented residence at 172, Surma, the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim as well as the informant promising to marry her. After she asked him to marry her as promised, he took her to the rented house at Akhalia, wherein on 11-4-2002 at 8 p.m. she brought an unknown man and made a show up her marriage with the accused-appellant. Then they lived together as husband and wife for two years.

Then she was kept in the house of her mother. Their wedding tie has been continuing. On 4-11-2008 at 9 a.m., the accused-appellant came to her rented house at Bananipara and disowned their marital tie. He subdued her for a long time, creating the wrong impression in her mind that the marriage between them had taken place. After such an investigation, the trial court decided and set aside the case. But after such a decision, the aggrieved party, being dissatisfied with the decision, issued an appeal to this Court.

Issues

Whether it was a rape or not?
If it was not, then what would be the consequences?

Decisions

This Court set aside the case on the ground that the impugned order constituting rape is not sustainable and the appellant should be discharged. After such a decision, the appeal is allowed and filed by the aggrieved party as well as the victim, and it is also set aside hereby, and accused-appellant Golam Ahmed is discharged on 2-11-2010.

Justifications

This decision was made because it was admitted that they lived together as husband and wife for six years. So, it was not a rape because the consent of the victim was not obtained while practicing fraud. Sexual intercourse was not an act of one day, but for six years, and it is in the medical report that her age on the date of examining her medically on 4-1-2009 was 20 years.

As she was an adult woman, their sexual intercourse lasted for six years, which couldn’t be done without her consent. Such manner of occurrences as alleged in the FIR is preposterous and suffers from infirmity and improbability. Such act does not constitute an offense of rape punishable under Section 9(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, against the accused-appellant, and thus the accused-appellant has been discharged under 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.