The High Court made the observation in a case involving the rape of a 14-year-old boy. The victim’s mother had told the trial court that she wanted to close the case as she had arrived at a compromise with the accused.
However, Justice Sharma noted that the mother had simply stated that a compromise was arrived at, but could not deny that the rape incident had occurred.
The Court also noted that the woman was illiterate and that a compromise would not be needed if the incident had not taken place at all. In this backdrop, Justice Sharma underscored the need for courts to be vigilant so that such compromises do not hinder the delivery of justice.
“The Courts, thus, have to delve in for a deeper understanding into the underlying reasons for such compromises. Going beyond the surface of the matter, the Courts must recognise the need to understand the socio-economic context that may drive individuals to make choices that compromise their pursuit of justice. This approach ensures that the Courts remain cognizant of the broader societal dynamics that influence legal proceedings,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
