According to the Court’s findings, the woman who filed the complaint had given her consent to engage in sexual activity with the accused, whom she loved, not just because he promised to marry her, but also because she wanted it.
A man who was accused of rape for having sexual intercourse with a woman based on an alleged false promise of marriage was acquitted by the Calcutta High Court.
The Court found that the woman had willingly entered into a sexual relationship with the man because she loved him and desired it, and not solely because of the promise of marriage.
The Court cited various case laws to support its observation that a woman’s consent to engage in sexual activity with a man whom she deeply loves and trusts, based on a promise of marriage at a later date, “cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact”.
The court stated “In plethora of judgments of Supreme Court and High Court have held that consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.”
The case in question involved allegations that a man had assaulted and driven away his partner (prosecutrix) after she became pregnant and gave birth to his child. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta presided over the case and noted that while it may be morally reprehensible for the accused to have abandoned the prosecutrix, such moral indignation alone is not enough to make a case against him, unless there is evidence of dishonest intention.
After examining the submissions made by both parties, the Court concluded that it appeared to have been a consensual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix.
The court found ““No doubt it is morally reprehensible for the appellant to desert the victim lady with whom he had entered into an informal marriage after she had become pregnant. But moral indignation cannot take the place of legal proof that the cohabitation of the parties was on the basis of a dishonest representation of the appellant. Even for arguments sake it is accepted the appellant had committed a breach of promise that by itself cannot give rise to an inference that he entertained dishonest intention at the inception of the relationship. On the other hand, it appears parties cohabited under an informal arrangement and subsequently the appellant refused to formalise the relationship which resulted in the institution of the criminal case. These circumstances do not persuade this Court to hold cohabitation was on the basis of dishonest representation”.
The woman (prosecutrix) claimed that she had been living with the accused after he promised to marry her. She had filed a complaint against him previously, but withdrew it after he promised to marry her. It was further alleged that the accused had symbolically married the woman by applying vermillion on her forehead during their cohabitation. However, he later refused to enter into a formal marriage and drove her away.
The Court noted that the prosecutrix and the accused had been living together for a considerable amount of time before misunderstandings arose between them. Eventually, they split because the accused was unwilling to marry the woman formally.
According to the Court, it could not be assumed that the previous cohabitation between the parties was solely based on a false promise of marriage. The bench also stated that the woman was mature enough and capable of comprehending “the significance and ethical nature of the act she was engaging in when she cohabited with the accused and had a physical relationship with him.
The court stated “That is why she kept it a secret as long as she could. It appears that the matter got complicated on account of the prosecutrix becoming pregnant”.
After evaluating the case, the Court determined that the prosecutrix had willingly and knowingly given her consent to engage in sexual activity with the accused and that her agreement was not a result of any misinterpretation of the facts.
The court found that “In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a grown up lady aged about 26 years at the time of incident and she and the appellant were in physical relation. They have made sexual intercourse on several occasions in the residence of the victim lady as well as the appellant. The circumstances clearly indicate that the prosecutrix willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it,”
As a result, the Court went on to exonerate the appellant-accused and revoke the conviction that a Sessions Court had granted him.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/pil-supreme-court-seeks-registration-social-security-persons-live-in-relationships?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push-notification