Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court held that a consensual sexual relationship can never become a license for a man to assault a woman, terming it “gross misogynistic brutality.”

The court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, partly allowed the petition by obliterating the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, while sustaining other charges, including assault, intimidation, and attempt to murder. The court said, “any amount of consensus cannot handover a man with, the licence to assault a woman.”

The petitioner, a Circle Inspector in the police department, was accused by the complainant—a social worker and the wife of a police constable—of physical and sexual assault. The complaint stemmed from an incident on November 11, 2021, where the petitioner reportedly forcibly took the complainant to a hotel, assaulted her, and abandoned her at a bus stop in the early hours of November 12, after which she sought medical treatment and registered a crime.

The complainant alleged that she first met the petitioner in 2017 during a public meeting at a police station, and their relationship eventually became physical. The complainant alleged that her consent to have sexual relationship was obtained by force, fraud and deceit as the husband of the complainant was a constable and the petitioner could yield dominance over the constable to get his wife into the fold of sexual relationship.

Contrarily, the petitioner sought the quashing of the proceedings against him, arguing that the relationship was consensual since 2017 and did not meet the criteria for rape. The complainant's prior statements, financial dealings, and the truce reached in earlier cases were shown as evidence of consent and exaggeration of allegations. The petitioner claimed that the complainant was in the habit of registering crimes against the petitioner, while also citing  his acquittal in other related proceedings, including one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The court referred to the statements of witnesses and medical evidence. It noted that the complainant’s injuries were corroborated by hospital records and witness testimony, including that of a driver who transported her to the hospital. It found that while the relationship's consensual nature since 2017 is evident, it cannot excuse subsequent violent behaviour. “The relationship even physical between the complainant and the petitioner, as found in the material placed before the Court, would clearly indicate that they were at times peaceful and they were at times marred with violent acts on the part of the petitioner,” the court stated.

The court concluded that “the petitioner has to be tried, and trial is a must.” It ruled that while the charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) could not be sustained due to the consensual nature of the relationship, other charges, including those of assault and attempt to murder, were prima facie supported by evidence.

 

Cause Title: B. Ashok Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr [Criminal Petition No. 3594 of 2022]

Appearances: Advocates P. Prasanna Kumar and Sandesh P. Nadiger for the petitioner, HC Government Pleader Harish Ganapathi for the State, and Advocates Rekha M. And H.C.Shivaramu for the complainant.