Can Judges Dispense Gender Justice While Expressing Views That Go Against It? When the highest constitutional court indicates that an offence of rape can be compounded or mitigated, contrary to the law, it sends a dangerous signal to all sexual offenders that marrying the victim would grant them amnesty. File image of a statue depicting the scales of justice. Women04/Mar/2021 The persistent prevalence of patriarchal prejudices and misogyny appears to have been in full display when the Chief Justice of India asked the serial rapist of a minor girl whether he would marry her. The man to whom this question was posed was facing charges of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and rape, criminal intimidation under Sections 376, 417, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He had been accused of clandestinely entering the house of the victim survivor, a distant relative, when she was alone, gagging and tying her hands and feet and raping her. The girl was studying in Class 9 then. He continued to rape her repeatedly, until she was in class 12, by intimidating and threatening to harm her and her family.