Victim Had Significant Maturity To Understand Consequences Of Act: Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case Against A Famous Musician
The Bombay High Court quashed a rape case against a famous musician on the ground that the victim had significant maturity to understand the consequences of the act she was consenting to.
The Goa Bench was deciding a writ petition filed by the accused seeking to quash and set aside the FIR lodged against him by the victim.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes observed, “The physical relation between the parties had developed with the consent of the complainant and though she alleged that on the first occasion, the petitioner had forcible sexual relation, it is alleged that there were 7 instances when the petitioner and the complainant had sexual relations with consent. The complainant voluntarily stayed with the petitioner and even travelled with him to different places. Thus, the complainant had adequate knowledge and significant maturity to understand the consequences associated with the act she was consenting to. The complainant was capable of understanding the complications and issues surrounding her relationship with the petitioner.”
Advocate Arun Bras De Sa represented the petitioner while Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner claimed to be a reputed musician by profession. The complainant (victim) was aged 38 years and the petitioner (accused) was aged 32 years. As per the complaint lodged by the victim, it was alleged that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that the victim met the accused in October fest at Inox Panaji in 2023 when she went for a show along with her friend. The accused was performing for an event and since then they both became friends and started chatting with each other on Instagram. In January this year, the accused told the victim that he wants to talk to her grandmother and then he told her that he wants to marry the victim, however, she was not ready.
The victim’s grandmother told the accused regarding her past to which he said that her part does not matter. It was alleged that the accused took the victim for dinner at his friend’s restaurant and since it was too late, he requested her to stay at his flat. At night, the accused forcibly had sex with her and then promised her that he would marry her. Thereafter, the accused had a sexual relationship with her consent at her relative’s place. He had a sexual relationship with her on seven occasions on the promise of marrying her. However, after a few days, he started ignoring her. The victim then found that she was pregnant and she alleged that the accused cheated and raped her under the pretext of marriage. Hence, an FIR was registered against him.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “The complainant had willingly accompanied the petitioner who was 32 years of age to the locations mentioned in the complaint and in the Section 164 statement. It is alleged that the petitioner had given her an assurance that he would marry her. On the first occasion, it is stated by the complainant that the petitioner had forcible sexual relations with her against her wish. The complainant had in close proximity thereafter voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on several occasions resulting in physical relations with the consent. The complainant though in her complaint says that on several occasions the physical relations was by consent, however, in the Section 164 statement she says that such consent was on the promise that the petitioner would marry her.”
The Court added that the complainant was sufficiently mature to understand the consequences of such a relationship and she says that the petitioner stopped meeting her after informing the complainant that his mother is opposing the marriage on account of a civil registration in 2013 with some other man which was cancelled.
“Section 90 provides that any consent given under a misconception of fact would not be considered valid so far as the provisions of Section 375 are concerned and thus such a physical relationship would be tantamount to committing rape”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that it is a case of consensual relationship rather than forcible sexual relationship to constitute a charge of rape against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the accused.
Cause Title- Mr. L v. State & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-GOA:1500-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Arun Bras De Sa, Kyle D’Souza, and Mark Valadares.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe, Advocates Rohan Desai, Ashay Priolkar, and Pranav Pathak.
