RANCHI<\/em>: The Jharkhand High Court<\/a><\/strong> has acquitted a man who was convicted in a rape case based on an allegation of physical relations on a promise of marriage. The Court held that when two adults are in a consensual relationship, the case cannot automatically become rape only because marriage did not happen immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Rajesh Kumar<\/strong> allowed the criminal appeal filed by Aalim Ansari and set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal<\/strong>. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case started from a complaint filed by the woman in January 2012. She alleged that the appellant had physical relations with her for around eight months after assuring her that he would marry her. She claimed that after she became pregnant, she repeatedly asked him to solemnise the marriage, but he kept delaying it and later refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On this basis, an FIR was registered under Sections 376<\/a>, 493 and 506 IPC<\/strong>. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. However, during trial, charge was framed only under Section 376 IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including panchayat members, the woman, the investigating officer and the doctor. Some witnesses said that after the woman became pregnant, a village panchayat was held and the appellant first agreed to marry her but later refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But during cross-examination, the case took a different turn. The woman herself admitted that she was in a love relationship with the appellant<\/strong>. She also stated that they later got married, were living happily, and had two children together. She further admitted that the criminal case was filed before their marriage took place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father of the woman and another prosecution witness also admitted that the appellant and the woman were husband and wife. This showed that the relationship was not a simple case of force, deception or exploitation, but a relationship between two consenting adults where marriage was delayed and later solemnised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The appellant\u2019s lawyers argued that the relationship was consensual from the beginning. They submitted that both parties were major, understood the consequences of their relationship, and the case was filed only because there was delay in marriage after pregnancy.<\/strong> They argued that once the parties had married and were living together with children, the conviction under Section 376 IPC could not stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The State opposed the appeal and supported the conviction passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After looking at the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence of rape. The Court noted that both parties were adults and the relationship was consensual. The woman\u2019s own statement weakened the allegation that her consent was taken by fraud or false promise of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Merely having a sexual relationship and the bald statement that on the false pretext of marriage, the consent has been obtained, is not enough to convict the appellant, even this factual matrix has been negated by the victim in her deposition.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court held that the basic ingredients required for conviction under Section 376 IPC were not proved. The Court therefore quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case again shows how a man can face years of criminal trial, stigma and the threat of imprisonment even when the relationship was consensual and later turned into marriage<\/strong>. A delayed marriage cannot, by itself, be treated as rape unless deception from the very beginning is clearly proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed. Since the appellant was already on bail during the appeal, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. The Court also directed that the trial court records be sent back immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n