Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case Against Goa's Popular Musician, Says Victim Was 'Sufficiently Mature' To Understand Consequences Of Relationship
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information of Report (FIR) lodged against a popular musician at Goa for allegedly raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, observed that the woman was 'sufficiently mature' to understand the consequences of such a 'consensual' relationship.A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki Menezes noted that the complainant in the...
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information of Report (FIR) lodged against a popular musician at Goa for allegedly raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, observed that the woman was 'sufficiently mature' to understand the consequences of such a 'consensual' relationship.
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki Menezes noted that the complainant in the case had stated that she met the petitioner musician at a music fest in Panaji in October 2023. Since then the duo became good friends and continued chatting on social media platform -Instagram.
In January 2024, the petitioner met the complainant woman, and told her grandmother that he would want to marry her. However, the grandmother refused to permit the marriage. He insisted and allegedly assured the grandmother that he loves the complainant and that he will marry her even if his mother or family disapproves the move.
On January 8, 2024, the petitioner took the complainant out for dinner and since it was late, he asked her to stay in his flat for the night and then in the middle of the night, allegedly forcibly established sexual relation with her. After the incident the complainant was upset however, the petitioner assured her that he will marry her. Since then the petitioner and the complainant, on consent, indulged into sexual activities at least six more times at various places (house of the complainant's relatives, hotels etc) however, from January 19 onwards, the petitioner avoided her saying that his mother is not approving the relationship and won't let him marry her, it was alleged.
The bench noted that the complainant was of 38 years of age while the petitioner was 32-year-old.
"The complainant had willingly accompanied the petitioner who was 32 years of age, to the locations mentioned in the complaint and in the section 164 statements. It is alleged that the petitioner had given an assurance that he would marry her. On the first occasion, it is stated by the complainant that the petitioner had forcible sexual relations with her against her wish. The complainant had in close proximity thereafter voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on several occasions resulting in physical relations with the consent," the judges noted.
The complainant though in her complaint says that on several occasions the physical relations was by consent, however, in her section 164 statements, she says that such consent was on the promise that he would marry her, the judges noted.
"The complainant is sufficiently mature to understand the consequences of such a relationship. The complainant says that the petitioner stopped meeting her after informing the complainant that his mother is opposing the marriage on account of a civil registration in 2013 with some other man which was cancelled. The physical relation between the parties had developed with the consent of the complainant and though she alleged that on the first occasion, the petitioner had forcible sexual relation, it is alleged that there were 7 instances when the petitioner and the complainant had sexual relations with consent," the judges observed.
The complainant voluntarily stayed with the petitioner and even travelled with him to different places, the bench pointed out.
"Thus, the complainant had adequate knowledge and significant maturity to understand the consequences associated with the act she was consenting to. She was capable of understanding the complications and issues surrounding her relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner informed the complainant that his mother was against the marriage where after the petitioner stopped meeting her. In the facts of the case, we fail to comprehend the circumstance of the charge of rape levelled against the petitioner," the bench opined.
In any case, the bench was satisfied that on a careful study of all the relevant circumstances, it appeared to the court, to be a case of consensual relationship rather than forcible sexual relationship to constitute a charge of rape against the petitioner. It therefore, quashed the FIR lodged against the musician on January 25, 2024.
Appearance:
Advocates Arun Bras De Sa, Kyle D'Souza and Mark Valadares appeared for the Petitioner.
Public Prosecutor SG Bhobe represented the State.
Advocates Rohan Desai, Ashay Priolkar and Pranav Pathak represented the complainant.
Case Title: L vs State of Goa (Criminal Writ Petition 591 of 2024(F))