Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice SK Awasthi of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a ‘rape’ case against a man on the ground that consent for sex was granted by the prosecutrix even after knowing that the accused would not marry her.
According to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she continued her relationship with the applicant even after his refusal to marry her. The court observed that the consent for sex was granted by the prosecutirx because she was ‘deeply in love’ with the applicant and not due to false promise of marriage given by the applicant.
The Court referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra in which it was held that if a person does not make a promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, then such an act would not amount to rape.
The bench observed that the Court must carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had malafide motives and made a false promise to satisfy his lust only. There may be circumstances where the prosecutrix engaged in sexual intercourse only out of love and passion and not on account of any misconception created by the accused; or there may be a situation where the accused, due to unforeseen circumstances is unable to fulfil his promise to marry the prosecutrix. The Court held that such cases must be treated differently. “The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC”, held the court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824