Can a man be punished by presuming criminal intent merely because the woman was married?
The Orissa High Court ruled otherwise, holding that once rape was not proved and the relationship was consensual, the conviction could not stand for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Consensual Sex with Married Woman: The Orissa High Court at Cuttack, in a judgment delivered by Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, set aside the conviction of a man under Section 450 IPC after the Trial Court had already recorded a finding that the relationship between the parties was consensual.
The ruling underscores that criminal liability must be grounded in clear statutory ingredients and evidence.
The Trial Court had acquitted the accused of rape after finding absence of force and acknowledging consensual intimacy. However, he was still convicted under Section 450 IPC.
The High Court examined whether such conviction could legally survive once the core allegation of rape had failed.
Justice Panigrahi emphasised the importance of intention at the time of entry and observed:
“Mere entry into property is not sufficient. The entry must be accompanied by the requisite criminal intent as defined under Section 441 IPC and, in the case of Section 450 IPC, such intent must be to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.”
On facts, the Court noted the absence of violence, force, intimidation, or resistance and recorded:
“Once the charge of rape has not been sustained and the relationship has been held to be consensual in nature, the foundation for invoking Section 450 IPC must be independently examined.”
The judgment further clarified that criminal liability cannot be based on moral considerations:
“Criminal liability must be founded strictly upon statutory ingredients and not upon considerations of moral or social impropriety.”
Referring to constitutional principles, the Court observed:
“Consensual sexual relationships between adults fall within the ambit of personal autonomy and privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Applying these principles, the Court concluded:
“In view of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court itself regarding the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of force, this Court is of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of Section 450 IPC have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal.
The judgment reinforces that consensual adult relationships cannot be converted into criminal prosecution merely due to moral disapproval or strained matrimonial dynamics. Evidence and statutory ingredients must prevail over assumptions.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 374(2) CrPC | Provides right to appeal against conviction | Appeal filed before High Court challenging conviction |
| Section 450 IPC | Punishes house entry with intent to commit serious offence | Trial Court convicted accused under this section; High Court set aside conviction |
| Section 376 IPC | Penal provision relating to rape | Trial Court acquitted accused after finding relationship consensual |
| Section 376(2)(i) IPC | Aggravated rape provision | Charge framed but held inapplicable due to absence of required ingredients |
| Section 441 IPC | Defines requirement of intent at time of entry | Referred by Court to assess whether criminal intent existed |
| Section 428 CrPC | Allows set-off of pre-trial detention | Trial Court granted set-off for detention already undergone |
| Article 21 Constitution of India | Protects autonomy and privacy | Cited to emphasise consensual adult relationship cannot be criminalised |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 | Decriminalised adultery and recognised autonomy | Relied upon to highlight personal autonomy in consensual relationships |
| State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal (2005) 10 SCC 714 | Precedent involving forcible entry with rape allegation | Distinguished as facts involved force and threat unlike present case |
Details
- Case Title: Ajit Kishan vs State of Odisha
- Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
- Case Number: CRLA No. 736 of 2025
- Bench: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
- Date of Hearing: 27.01.2026
- Date of Judgment: 13.02.2026
- Nature of Proceedings: Criminal appeal against conviction
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Ms. A. Ray, Advocate
- For Respondent: Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Key Takeaways
- When a court itself records that a relationship was consensual, criminal charges built on assumed immoral intent cannot survive in law.
- Criminal liability must be strictly based on proven statutory ingredients, not on social disapproval or marital status.
- Once the allegation of rape fails on merits, any connected charge requiring serious criminal intent must independently stand on solid evidence.
- Moral outrage cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt; intention at the time of entry must be clearly established.
- Consensual adult relationships cannot be given a criminal colour merely to satisfy emotional narratives; evidence, not assumptions, must decide guilt.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.