The Supreme Court recently reversed the Himachal High Court's dismissal of the case filed by the parents of a minor girl, who became pregnant after being repeatedly raped by her teacher, who had threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
The Himachal High Court judge acquitted the rapist-teacher on the unheard-of ground that "there was no evidence to prove the Class IV student had not consented to sex"!!!! What exactly was the judge thinking then? Did he mean that a class IV girl (average age: 10-11) could consent to sex? And as a concerned friend observed, if there was no evidence to prove that she had not consented to sex, then was there any evidence to prove that she had? Isn’t the judge aware that a minor's 'consent' to sex (whatever that is) amounts to nothing?
Again, the Supreme Court's decision, too, was far from desirable. Not only was the teacher sentenced to a ridiculous seven years in prison, but also he was not banned from any teaching post after his release.
Where can we go from here? A HC judge who thinks a kid could have consented to sex, and then a SC which brushes such perverseness under the mat … Why does the world have to be so absurd?