No Wrongdoing Can Be Attributed To Consensual Sexual Acts Between Adults Regardless Of Their Marital Status: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that no wrongdoing can be attributed if two consenting adults indulge in consensual sexual activity, regardless of their marital status.“While societal norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally occur within the confines of marriage, no wrongdoing can be attributed if consensual sexual activity occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of...
The Delhi High Court has observed that no wrongdoing can be attributed if two consenting adults indulge in consensual sexual activity, regardless of their marital status.
“While societal norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally occur within the confines of marriage, no wrongdoing can be attributed if consensual sexual activity occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of their marital status,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
The court observed that false allegations of sexual misconduct and coercion not only tarnish the reputation of an accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine cases.
“Hence, it is imperative for the Court to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie allegations against the accused in each case, especially when issues of consent and intent are contentious,” the court said.
Justice Mahajan made the observations while granting bail to a man in a rape case. The woman alleged that he made sexual relations with her forcefully multiple times and on made a promise to marry her.
The woman alleged that she later found out that the accused was married and had two children. She claimed that he used to demand gifts from her and she had allegedly given Rs. 1.5 lakhs in cash and other valuables to him.
Granting bail to the man, the court said that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the alleged incident and whether her consent of was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry cannot be established at the stage of bail, and the same would be a matter of trial.
“It is apparent that the prosecutrix was meeting the applicant for quite some time before the filing of the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship even after knowing the fact that the applicant is a married man,” the court said.
It added that the prosecutrix had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things that had happened, adding that her actions at did not suggest passive acquiescence under psychological duress but rather imply tacit consent, devoid of any misconception.
“…at the stage of considering bail, it is neither appropriate nor feasible for the court to draw any conclusion, let alone render any finding, as to whether a promise of marriage made to the prosecutrix was false and in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to when it was given. Such determinations must await a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of evidence to be led by the parties at the trial,” the court said.
Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Shankar Datt Gahtori, Mr. Vijay Datt Gahtori, Mr. Tara Singh Bisht, Mr. Priyank Kharkwal, Mr. Subhash Kumar & Mr. Sameer Gautam, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State along with Varun Gupta, Adv.; Adv. Ashutosh Kaushik & Adv. Naveen Sarswat for victim
Title: SUNNY ALIAS RAVI KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHII
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 537