[False Promise To Marry] One Person Can't Be Prosecuted For Rape Merely Because Mutual Relationship Turned Sour: Bombay High Court
When two people invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other alleged rape after things went south and the relationship didn’t culminate into a marriage, the Bombay High Court observed while discharging a man accused of raping his girlfriend since eight years.Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the trial court’s order refusing to discharge the man...
When two people invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other alleged rape after things went south and the relationship didn’t culminate into a marriage, the Bombay High Court observed while discharging a man accused of raping his girlfriend since eight years.
Justice Bharati Dangre set aside the trial court’s order refusing to discharge the man under sections 376, 323 of the IPC on a complaint filed by his 27-year-old girlfriend in 2016.
“Two matured persons coming together and investing in a relationship, one cannot be blamed only because the other complained of the act at some point of time when the relationship did not go well and for whatever reason need not ultimately culminate into a marriage.”
Significantly the High Court observed that their sexual relations were not only on the promise of marriage but also because the woman loved the accused. Moreover, a promise of marriage didn’t precede every sex episode, the court added.
Facts
The court was hearing a revision application filed by the accused, assailing the trial court’s order from 2019 refusing to discharge him in the case filed by his ex. The Dindoshi sessions court had observed that the case was not of a consensual relationship because sometimes intercourse was forceful as well according to the complainant.
Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for the man and APP PN Dabholkar appeared for the State. The complainant alleged that she met the guy through Orkut in 2008 and the two fell in love by 2013. Even their parents knew about their relationship.
According to the woman, she permitted the relationship on the assurance of marriage but when she asked for it, he refused. Their relationship turned sour and in 2016 an FIR was registered.
Observations
At the outset the court observed that the duo were in a prolonged relationship for 8 years, and it cannot be said that she consented for sex only because she was under misconception that he is going to marry her.
“The prosecutrix is sufficiently of matured age to be conscious of the relationship, both physical and mental, and merely because, the relationship had now turned sour, it cannot be inferred that the physical relationship established with her, on every occasion, was against her will and without her consent.”
The judge noted since “the couple used to meet in isolation, with no indication that on every occasion when the physical relationship was established, the promise of marriage was made, when she has unequivocally consented to the physical indulgence, without any grievance being made till she lodged the FIR on 17.02.2016, I do not think that sufficient ground exist to proceed against the Applicant by charging him under Section 376 of the IPC.”
Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to discharge the Accused by exercising power available “cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation, that at some time intercourse was forcible,” the bench said.
Case Title: Sameer Amrut Kondekar Vs State of Maharashtra [Revision Application No.408 Of 2019]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 180