25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Subsequent Refusal To Marry After Sex Not Sufficient To Constitute Offence Of Rape

Anila Sabu ,
  11 July 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
State Of Karnataka
Brief :

Citation :
BAIL APPL. NO. 5164 OF 2022

Case Title:
Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003

Date Of Judgment:
8TH JULY 2022

Bench:
KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Parties:
Petitioner: Navaneeth N. Nath
Respondent: State of Karnataka

SUBJECT

Unless the consent for sex was obtained through a fraudulent act or misrepresentation, a sexual connection between two consensual adult partners will not qualify as rape under section 376 of the IPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Section 376 of the IPC

Rape is punishable by harsh imprisonment of either sort for a duration that [must not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine], with the exceptions

The Court further stated that a promise to marry will only constitute rape if it was made in bad faith, was tainted by fraud, or was not meant to be kept at the time it was made.

2. Section 375 of the IPC

Having sex with a woman who is under 18 years old if it is done against her will, without her agreement, under duress, through deception, misrepresentation, or coercion, when she is drunk or under the influence, or if she is mentally unfit.

3. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

A High Court or Court of Session may order: (a) the release of any person who is in custody and has been charged with an offence; (b) the revocation or modification of any condition that a Magistrate imposed when releasing any person on bail; and (c) the imposition of any condition that the High Court or Court of Session deems necessary for the purposes specified in subsection (3) of section 437.

The High Court or the Court of Session must notify the Public Prosecutor of the application for bail before granting it to a person accused of a crime that can only be tried by the Court of Session or that, even if not, carries a life sentence. This is true unless the court determines, for reasons that must be recorded in writing, that it is not practical to do so.

4. Section 164 of the Cr.P.C

The statements that the magistrate recorded are discussed in Section 164 CrPC: No matter whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction in the case, Subsection (1) allows the Magistrate to record a person's statement or confession. If he lacks such jurisdiction, subsection (6) will take effect.

5. Section 313 of the IPC

Whether or not the woman is pregnant, anybody who violates section 312 without the woman's agreement is subject to a fine as well as a punishment of life in prison or a period of imprisonment of either sort that may last up to 10 years.

BRIEF FACTS

  • After pledging to marry the victim, the petitioner allegedly raped her at several locations, including a hotel in Ernakulam, Vagamon, and other locations. He then allegedly broke his word and chose to wed another woman, according to the police report.
  • The prosecution asserted that the victim made an attempt at suicide after learning about the impending marriage.
  • The prosecution further claims that section 313 IPC was included since it came to light during the investigation that the victim had two miscarriages forced upon her at the petitioner's behest.
  • Only when a promise to marry is delivered in bad faith, is tainted by deception, or was not intended to be kept at the time it was made, does consent for sex obtained through that promise constitute rape.
  • The victim allegedly sliced her wrist on June 21, 2022, when she was inside the room where the petitioner and his fiancee were residing. She was then taken to the hospital, where she allegedly testified against the petitioner.
  • The prosecution's entire case is refuted by the victim's statement from June 21, 2022, according to the knowledgeable attorney, and the police's subsequent charges are legally and factually unsupportable. In any case, the petitioner's extended incarceration is not justified, according to the experienced Senior Counsel, especially since no additional interrogation of the petitioner or recovery is necessary now that the inquiry is essentially over.

QUESTIONS RAISED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

  • The learned appellant pointed out that after promising to marry the victim, the petitioner had coerced her into a sexual relationship and had perpetuated the vile act for the previous four years.
  • The appellant continued by stating that the offence under section 313 of the IPC was also added because it emerged that the victim was compelled to end her pregnancies twice throughout the course of the investigation and based on the statement she provided under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
  • The experienced prosecutor further argued that the petitioner had even signed one of the consent forms submitted for the pregnancy's termination with his name as her spouse, which is also consistent with the de facto complainant's claim.
  • It was further stated that the petitioner's attempts to persuade the victim through their mutual acquaintances and coworkers further suggest that, should the petitioner be granted bail, the victim will be in danger,
  • The victim's expert attorney claimed that from the start, the petitioner kept delaying the marriage under various pretexts while also engaging in a sexual relationship despite having promised to marry her.
  • According to Adv. Ralph, the aforementioned behaviour is suggestive of the crime that the petitioner committed.
  • The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously objected to the issuance of bail and noted that the victim had precisely addressed the instances of when and how the crime was perpetrated in her statement provided under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDANT

  • The respondent claimed that the prosecution's case is based on a false premise and that, even if the evidence were to be acknowledged in its entirety for the sake of argument, an offence under section 376 IPC would not be shown.
  • The eminent Senior Counsel claimed that the victim's first statement revealed merely a four-year-old romantic relationship and a consensual sexual relationship. Without any indication that a marriage would follow, the connection naturally progressed into physical intimacy.
  • It was further argued that even the allegation of twice aborting her unborn child would not strengthen the prosecution's case because the continuation of the relationship even after the first pregnancy itself is a glaring indication that no promise of marriage was ever made, and on the other hand, the relationship was purely consensual.
  • The Senior Counsel further argued that despite the fact that the petitioner intended to wed the victim for reasons outside of his control, a marriage could not develop out of the relationship. Such behaviour cannot turn a physical union into a rape if a relationship does not lead to marriage owing to family disapproval or for other reasons.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

  • The analised the case and allowed bail with conditions.
  • The court further clarified that observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of evaluating the bail application and will not have any bearing on the merits of the case in any later court, it was then made clear.

Conclusion

The court concluded by allowing the bail application on the following grounds:

  • If the petitioner signs a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two suitable sureties for the same amount, the court with jurisdiction will release the petitioner on bail.
  • For a period of three months, the petitioner must continue to meet with the investigating officer once every other Saturday between 9 and 11 a.m.
  • The petitioner is prohibited from intimidating or attempting to sway the witnesses, tampering with the evidence, making direct or indirect contact with the victim or the victim's family members, or attempting to control the victim or her family.
  • Petitioner must show up in front of the investigating officer whenever needed.
  • While the petitioner is out on bail, he must not commit any crimes.
  • Without the consent of the court with jurisdiction, the petitioner may not leave India.

The court stated that despite the bail having been granted by the Court, in the event of a breach of any of the conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to assess the application for cancellation, if any, and impose appropriate orders in line with the law.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Anila Sabu?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 447




Comments








Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query