Case Law

Monwar Malik Vs State 2007

Case Summary

In the case of Monwar Malik vs State, Momena Akter was a 16 year old girl received a proposal of being married by the accused Monwar Malik. Following that proposal they intercoursed with one another. After that the victim asked the accused to marry her, but he refused to do so. Thus, the victim filed a rape case against him. The court after hearing the case dismissed the matter stating that doing intercourse with a girl above sixteen years is not amountin to rape under Section 375 of the Penal Code it there is a consent of doing such intercourse. There was also no eye witnesses to prove such rape.

Facts

The victim, Momena Akter, was aged 16 years, and the accused, Monwar Malik, offered to love her, but the victim, Momena Akter, did not agree to the proposal. Monwar Malik conveyed and promised to marry her, and after that, the victim, Momena Akter, responded to the proposal. On the date of 13-03-2001 at about 8:00 PM, he silently entered her bedroom and committed intercourse with her.

On the date 10-09-2001 at about 8:00 PM, the victim came out to respond to a call-up nature. The accused told her that he had come to take her, but the victim refused. Then the accused by force took her in an open field and raped her against her will.

Then, the father of the victim and others attempted to solve the matter through Salish, but the accused did not respond. The victim asked the accused to marry, but the accused refused. On 16-10-2001, the victim filed a complaint with the Magistrate in Pansha, Rajbari, under Section 9(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

Issues

Is the accused person convicted on a charge under Section 9(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000?

Decisions

The Supreme Court held that if an accused makes sexual intercourse with a girl above the age of 16 years with her consent after having promised to marry her, he will not be held convicted under section 375 of the Penal Code.

Justifications

The Supreme Court allowed to Appeal on the ground;

firstly, Nurul Amin, who is a medical officer, examined the victim and found no sign of rape in the person of the victim.
Secondly, the victim did not disclose the second date of occurrence to the magistrate in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.