Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has discharged a man from a case of repeated rape after noting that the relationship with the woman was consensual and continued for two years. The FIR was lodged only after talks between the two families regarding marriage did not materialize.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that there was little possibility of conviction as the court granted a plea by appellant Shiv Pratap Singh Rana against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which had rejected his plea for discharge.

The sessions court had framed charges under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant in the FIR lodged on September 6, 2018, based on objectionable photographs of the complainant.

The appellant used to run a coaching center in Dabra, which the prosecutrix attended with her brother Mukul during 2015 and 2016.

Upon reviewing and comparing the two statements of the prosecutrix—one given to the police under Section 161 CrPC and the other recorded under Section 164 CrPC within a span of 24 hours—the bench noted, "It is noticeable that not only are the statements contradictory in themselves, but they are also contradictory to each other."

The bench observed that the fact the FIR was lodged two years after the alleged incident suggests a consensual nature of the relationship that had deteriorated.

"It is inconceivable that the prosecutrix, who was about 22 years old at the time of the alleged incident, would accompany the appellant to a temple if she was being threatened by him. She was an adult and, therefore, fully aware of the consequences of her actions," the bench said.

The court also noted that it was not the prosecutrix's claim that the appellant had forced her to bathe under a waterfall and then took her photographs.

"The act of the prosecutrix bathing under the waterfall and changing clothes in the appellant’s presence effectively rules out any threat or coercion by the appellant," the bench said.

Additionally, the court pointed out that the appellant's mobile phone or the photographs allegedly taken by him of the prosecutrix while she was bathing and changing clothes were neither recovered nor seized. The stamp paper allegedly made by the accused to express his willingness to marry, and the jewelry and cheques given by the complainant, were also not seized.

"In the absence of such materials, it would be virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove the charges of rape and intimidation against the appellant," the bench said.

The bench noted that the proviso to Section 375 IPC clarifies that a woman who does not physically resist penetration shall not be considered consenting to the sexual activity solely for that reason.

However, "Having regard to the overall context of the case, we believe that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant cannot be said to be against her will or without her consent. Based on the available evidence, no case of rape or criminal intimidation is made out."

The counsel for the respondents relied heavily on Section 90 IPC, particularly on the term "under a misconception of fact."

The bench pointed out that this court had previously examined the interaction between Section 375 IPC and Section 90 IPC regarding consent in the case of *Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra* (2019), stating that consent under Section 375 IPC requires an active understanding of the circumstances, actions, and consequences of the proposed act.

"An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inactions) and the possible consequences consents to such action," the court had said.

In the current case, the bench noted that there was no misconception of fact. The prosecution’s case was that while the appellant insisted on a relationship, the prosecutrix had declined on the grounds that the appellant was a friend of her younger brother and a distant relative.

Additionally, according to the prosecutrix, the appellant was younger than her. Nonetheless, she had accompanied him to a temple, where she voluntarily bathed under a waterfall. Her allegation that the appellant had secretly taken her photographs while she was bathing and later changing clothes and blackmailed her with them remains unsubstantiated in the absence of seized photographs or the mobile phone, the bench said.

The court concluded, "Thus, there is hardly any possibility of convicting the appellant. In fact, it is not even a case that can stand trial. It appears to be a case of a consensual relationship that deteriorated, leading to the FIR."

In these circumstances, the court believes that compelling the appellant to face a criminal trial based on these materials would be an abuse of the court's process, with the trial's result being a foregone conclusion.

The bench opined that it would be in the interest of justice to terminate the proceedings at this stage by quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

Case Title: Shiv Pratap Singh Rana Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr