Shanxi “Forced Marriage Rape Case” Upheld in Second Trial, Raises Questions.

The second trial of the “Engagement Rape Case” in Datong, Shanxi Province was publicly announced on April 16. It was reported that this was the 712th day of detainment for the man, Mr. Xi, who was sentenced to 3 years in the first trial.

According to a report by China’s CCTV News, the second trial court found that on January 30, 2023, the appellant Mr. Xi and the victim met through a local matchmaking agency and established a romantic relationship. On May 1, they got engaged, and on the afternoon of May 2, Mr. Xi forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim despite her resistance. On December 25, 2023, the Yanggao County Court in Shanxi Province sentenced Mr. Xi to 3 years in prison for rape in the first trial. Mr. Xi appealed the judgment.

In response to this, the second trial court announced that the original verdict would be upheld.

However, Mr. Xi’s mother, Mrs. Zheng, told Xiaoxiang Morning Post on April 15 that on May 1, her son’s engagement banquet was supposed to mark a new chapter in his life. During the banquet, their family even signed a “Promise Letter” pledging to add the name of Ms. Wu, the victim, to the property deed after one year of marriage. However, the next day, following intimate contact between the two, the woman requested her name be added earlier and even reported the incident as rape.

According to Mrs. Zheng, based on the information provided by her son, on the day of the incident at around 3 p.m., the two entered the bridal chamber in an intimate manner, engaged in intimate contact, and the woman even took a shower afterwards. She then requested her name be added prematurely, the negotiation failed, and she became emotionally volatile, running to the elevator area to vent. Concerned about a potential accident, he dragged her in the elevator. Mrs. Zheng questioned, “How can post-resistance prove that it was not consensual? Clearly, the evidence is insufficient.”

However, the case files showed that before the evaluation report was issued, the police arrested Mr. Xi on May 9, and the prosecutor approved the arrest on May 15. Mrs. Zheng believed that there was a possibility of erroneous arrest and detention by the police and prosecutor without the evaluation report.

Family members of Mr. Xi also pointed out that there was no medical assessment from judicial authorities on the cause and extent of the injuries of Ms. Wu, the victim.

On March 25, during the second trial in the criminal court, they presented over 40 pieces of evidence, hoping for a fair decision from the court, seeking the truth, and expecting reasonable judgment without evading their valid doubts.

After the court session ended around 1 p.m. that day, Mrs. Zheng informed Xiaoxiang Morning Post that the case would be scheduled for judgment at a later date. The prosecutor insisted during the trial that there was substantial sexual contact between the two parties.

Mrs. Zheng stated that their family would persist with the appeal, waiting for two years to see the court ascertain the truth and obtain a fair trial. “Before the trial, Datong Intermediate People’s Court intended to grant my son probation, but my son explicitly refused, insisting on his innocence.”

The decision to uphold the original verdict in the second trial on April 16 has sparked doubts online.

A netizen under the username “Baidu User c076fff” raised several doubts: “1. The woman didn’t drink alcohol and was mentally sound, why didn’t she resist during the incident? If it was rape, why not provide evidence of resistance? 2. Most absurdly, she took a shower afterward and reported the case the next day, why? 3. Why did the woman, who accused rape, not provide stronger evidence and rely on self-testimony from the defendant, what kind of logic is this? 4. Why did the police intervene and arrest the man without sufficient evidence while waiting for the test results? 5. Is it illegal to detain and arrest for over 700 days based only on the woman’s claim of rape without a complete chain of evidence?”

Another netizen commented, “It looks like a failed scam marriage turned into a police case.” “Accusing the woman of extortion seems obvious, a clear tricky situation.” “When will the legitimate rights of the man be protected? Does the woman have a special background?” “Finally understand why no one dares to get married, with courts giving sentences to men without direct evidence, protecting fraudsters, who would dare to get married?”