Read Time: 07 minutes
The high court discharged a man who was booked for raping the woman after noting that the physical relationship between them was not solely on the promise of marriage but the girl was in love with the accused/applicant.
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre has recently allowed a revision application and discharged a rape accused while observing that merely because the relationship between the accused and the victim had turned sour, it could not be inferred that the physical relationship established with victim, on every occasion, was against her will and without her consent.
“It can be clearly seen that for prolonged period of 8 years, the relationship between the two continued and it cannot be said that, only because she was under misconception that he is going to marry her, she had consented for sex. 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 court observed.
The single judge bench also observed that one cannot be blamed to be in a relationship only because it did not culminate into a marriage.
“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” the order read.
The court also noted that the physical relationship was not solely on the promise of marriage but the girl was in love with the accused/applicant.
“In any case, physical relationship maintained with the prosecutrix was not solely on the promise of marriage but since she was in love with the Applicant, she permitted him to indulge physically and this was repeated on several occasions, according to her own version” the order read.
Court was hearing a revision application filed by a rape accused against the rejection of the discharge application by the session court. The case pertains to a complaint lodged by a woman stating that, following the start of their relationship in 2013, the accused/applicant engaged in non-consensual intercourse with her at various locations in Mumbai.
She allowed this to happen on the understanding that they would eventually get married, but he repeatedly refused to follow through on his promise when she brought it up. Eventually, they separated, and the applicant allegedly sent her lewd messages and made derogatory comments about her character, the woman claimed.
She filed a complaint, resulting in an FIR being lodged under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The accused sought discharge from the case during the framing of charges before the trial court, citing a prolonged consensual relationship of eight years with the woman. The sessions court rejected the application in 2019, leading to the present revision application before the high court.
Justice Dangre concluded that the mere observation of forcible intercourse could not be used as a basis for refusing to discharge the accused/applicant.
“In the aforesaid circumstances, refusal to discharge the Accused by the impugned order by exercising power available in the said Court, cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation, that at some time intercourse was forcible” the court held.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
