38-year-old doctor sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape on pretext of marriage
Ward Boy Arrested
Kolhapur: A 38-year-old doctor has been convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by a fast-track special court in Kolhapur for raping a woman under the false promise of marriage, along with charges of cheating and criminal intimidation.
The court found the doctor guilty under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 506 (criminal intimidation). He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the rape charge, and additionally to one year and two years for cheating and criminal intimidation offences, respectively. "All sentences are to run concurrently," the court said.
According to a report by The Times of India, the conviction relates to allegations that the doctor ‘repeatedly raping' a woman between Dec 31, 2016, and March 2, 2018, by ‘dishonestly inducing her to keep physical relations with him on the false promise of marriage.' The fast-track special judge Shailendra Tambe delivered the verdict after examining documentary and oral evidence placed on record.
At the time of the alleged offences, the doctor, a native of Gulbarga in Karnataka, was employed with a prominent hospital in Bengaluru. After the woman lodged a complaint at Karveer police station on April 18, 2018, alleging rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation, he had secured anticipatory bail from a Kolhapur court. A day before the verdict, which was pronounced on February 26, police took him into custody from Gulbarga and produced him before a local court, which remanded him to Kalamba jail under judicial custody.
As per the prosecution, the woman’s family had been exploring marriage proposals and had shared her biodata through an agent, leading to contact with the doctor. The two reportedly spoke over the phone for about a month. On Dec 31, 2016, the doctor allegedly took her from her home to Goa to celebrate New Year's, stating that he would introduce her to his parents. The two stayed at a South Goa resort until Jan 2, 2017. The prosecution stated that during this period, the doctor forced the woman into a physical relationship and took photos and videos of her in a compromising position.
The prosecution further argued that they met multiple times thereafter in Bengaluru, where he allegedly continued to force her into physical relations and postponed marriage discussions whenever she raised the issue. On March 2, 2018, when the woman travelled to Bengaluru, he informed her that his marriage had been arranged with another woman and allegedly threatened her against pursuing the matter. The prosecution stated that the woman suffered severe mental agony and required prolonged treatment for depression.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the woman, her father, and brother, and two medical officers. Evidence presented included seizure panchanama of the mobile phone, hotel booking receipts, online reservations, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before a magistrate, medical examination report for sexual assault, spot panchanamas, and forensic medical examination of the accused.
After evaluating the material on record, the court observed, "It is found that the accused took advantage of the nature of the victim. The victim blankly believed and trusted the accused, but after two years of physical relations with the victim, the accused refused to marry her and cheated, committing breach of trust of the victim." Judge Tambe further held, "The prosecution has duly proved the ingredients of sections 376, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., repeated sexual intercourse with the victim by giving false promises of marriage."
The court also noted that while the victim was unmarried and seeking marriage, the accused was pursuing marriage with another woman, as evidenced by his wedding card produced by the investigating officer. It recorded, "In the present case, the accused has given false promise of marriage and kept physical relations and raped the victim, which is duly proved by examining the victim, her father and brother, medical officers, spot & seizure panch and IO."
The defence argument that the case was false and motivated by an attempt to extract money was rejected. The court observed that the victim belonged to a well-to-do and educated family.
