The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that in cases where two consenting adults remain in a long-standing live-in relationship, the law raises a presumption that their physical relationship was consensual and, therefore, a subsequent refusal to marry cannot attract criminal liability for the offence of rape on the grounds of a false promise of marriage.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, the High Court observed that a prolonged live-in relationship between two mature, financially independent and able-minded adults ordinarily gives rise to a presumption of voluntary and informed consent. The Bench held that an expression of intention or desire to solemnise the relationship through marriage at a later stage does not, by itself, establish that the physical relationship existed solely because of a promise to marry.
The Court further observed that, in view of the growing financial and social independence of women, courts should avoid adopting a pedantic or mechanical approach while examining allegations arising out of failed relationships. Instead, judicial scrutiny must extend to the duration of cohabitation, the conduct of the parties, surrounding circumstances, and contemporaneous evidence to determine whether consent was vitiated by misconception of fact or whether it was freely and consciously given.
The case arose from an appeal filed by a 40-year-old Project Manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation, who challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur.
According to the prosecution, the complainant became acquainted with the accused while pursuing an MBA at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Raipur, in 2019. She alleged that the accused assured her that he intended to marry her, following which they entered into a physical relationship and remained in a live-in relationship for nearly two years.
The complainant alleged that after completion of their MBA programme, the accused repeatedly avoided discussions regarding marriage and ultimately informed her that his parents opposed the proposed marriage because she was older than him, was a divorcee, and belonged to the Christian faith.
She further alleged that on November 28, 2021, when she visited the accused’s residence and again requested him to marry her, he subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her will. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered in December 2022 under Sections 376 and 377 IPC.
After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant preferred the present appeal before the High Court.
While examining the evidence on record, the Division Bench noted that during cross-examination, the complainant admitted that she had agreed to resolve the dispute before the Women’s Commission upon payment of Rs. 30 lakh. The Court further recorded that the accused had handed over a cheque for Rs. 15 lakh pursuant to the proposed settlement, but payment was subsequently stopped after the settlement failed to materialise because the complainant did not execute the settlement agreement.
The Bench also took note of the complainant’s admission that both parties had mutually agreed that marriage would take place only with the consent of their respective families. The testimony of her brother further indicated that she had informed him that the relationship had developed out of a mutual love affair despite the parties belonging to different religious communities.
The High Court also attached significance to the medical evidence. It noted that the doctor who examined the complainant categorically stated that she had not complained of forced sexual intercourse or unnatural sex during the medical examination and that no injuries or physical findings suggestive of forcible or unnatural sexual intercourse were detected.
From the overall appreciation of the evidence, the Court held that the complainant, being a mature, educated and financially independent woman, was fully conscious of the nature and consequences of entering into the relationship. It observed that the admitted period of continuous cohabitation, coupled with the conduct of both parties, clearly established that the relationship was consensual and not induced solely by a promise of marriage.
The Court further observed that the subsequent breakdown of the relationship, the accused’s refusal to marry, or the failure of a monetary settlement before the Women’s Commission could not retrospectively convert a consensual physical relationship into the offence of rape.
Affirming the findings of the trial court, the Division Bench held that the acquittal suffered from no perversity, illegality, infirmity or miscarriage of justice warranting appellate interference. It concluded that the trial court’s findings were fully consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court governing consent in long-term live-in relationships and allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the judgment of acquittal and dismissed the acquittal appeal at the admission stage.
The post Refusal to marry live-in partner does not amount to rape: Chhattisgarh High Court appeared first on India Legal.