Consensual Sex Even After Refusal To Marry Does Not Amount To Rape: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a 'rape case' against a man on the ground that the consent for sex was granted by the prosecutrix even after knowing very well that the accused would not marry her.The court also found that the prosecutrix was 'deeply in love' with the 'accused' and wanted to remain in his company. Therefore, the prosecutrix cannot turn around and claim that...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a 'rape case' against a man on the ground that the consent for sex was granted by the prosecutrix even after knowing very well that the accused would not marry her.
The court also found that the prosecutrix was 'deeply in love' with the 'accused' and wanted to remain in his company. Therefore, the prosecutrix cannot turn around and claim that the consent was based on misconception of the facts, Justice SK Awasthi observed.
To conclude thus, the court took note of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, and observed that the same clearly indicates that after the refusal of the applicant to marry her, the prosecutrix choose to continue the relationship with the applicant. It is not a case that the consent for sex was granted by the prosecutrix due to false promise of marriage given by the applicant, but was granted because the prosecutrix was also in love with the applicant and wanted to remain in his company, the court added.
The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment [ Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra] in which it had held that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. Referring to the same, the bench said:
"The Court in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had malafide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any malafide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC."
Read Order