The Court was dealing with a case where a man had been accused of having committed rape by being in a sexual relationship with a woman after making a false promise of marriage.
The Gujarat High Court recently said that not every sexual relationship where a man doesn’t marry a woman, despite promising to, should be considered rape.
Justice Divyesh Joshi noted with concern the increasing trend of consensual relationships being turned into rape cases, similar to the rise in false cases filed against husbands under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty to wives.
“Like the cases under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 498(A), the cases of consensual sexual relationship being later converted into allegations of rape are rapidly increasing,” the Court stated.
The Court emphasized that in cases of rape based on a promise of marriage, a man can only be found guilty if it is proven that he made the promise without intending to keep it, and that the promise was the sole reason the woman consented to the sexual relationship.
“Now the question arises that mere say of a woman of being promised to marry by the accused, can be so believable so as to held the accused guilty of the offence of rape. The answer is ‘No’. In every case where a man fails to marry a woman despite a promise made to her, cannot be held guilty for committing the offence of rape. He can only be held guilty if it is proved that the promise to marry was given with no intention to honour it and also that was the only reason due to which the woman agreed to have a sexual relationship”, the Court said in its September 19 order.
Hence, it proceeded to quash rape charges against a man.
The Court pointed out that when a woman understands the nature of the sexual act and agrees to it based on a promise of marriage, and the relationship continues for a long time, it becomes hard to say if her consent was only because of the promise or because they both wanted to be together.
The Court was hearing a plea from a man accused of rape, who was seeking to have the criminal case against him dismissed.
His lawyer argued that the FIR clearly showed there was a romantic relationship between the accused and the complainant that lasted for about a year and a half.
It was also stated that the complainant had willingly entered into a physical relationship with the accused.
The prosecution, however, argued that the accused’s intent to deceive the woman is a matter of evidence that can only be evaluated during the trial.
After hearing the arguments, the Court noted that rape is defined by a single instance of sexual assault, where clear resistance from the victim is shown at the time of the assault attempt.
However, if a woman allows the relationship to continue for some time and later files an FIR after a disagreement, the issue of consent becomes relevant. When consent is given, especially by a woman who is of legal age, the case can no longer be considered rape.
The Court also pointed out that, in this case, the complaint specifically mentioned that the woman had become pregnant as a result of the sexual relationship with the accused.
However, the Court found that the DNA report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) showed the accused was not the biological father of the child.
This completely undermined the prosecution’s case, according to the Court.
As a result, the Court accepted the accused man’s request and dropped the criminal charges against him.
Advocate RV Acharya represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Jay Mehta represented the State of Gujarat.