Difficult To Adjudicate Who Is Befooling Whom: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Raping Married Woman On False Pretext Of Marriage

The Allahabad High Court upheld acquittal of a man accused of raping a married woman on false pretext of marriage.

The Court highlighted the equitable distribution of the burden of proof between complainants and accused in cases of sexual offences, stating that the male partner is not always at fault.

The Division Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla upheld the acquittal while stressing that the burden of proof lies on both parties involved.

The Court recognized the significance of Chapter XVI, "Sexual Offences" in safeguarding the dignity and honor of women but cautioned against presuming guilt solely based on gender. "No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them," the Division Bench observed.

The Court further said, "It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage. Both of them are major and they understand the gravity of the situation and the far reaching repercussion of pre-marital sex and still they maintained this relationship at different places, different cities, which clearly indicates that this acquisitions that she was subjected to sexual harassment and rape cannot be accepted and learned Trial Judge rightly so have given a benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent and relieved from the major charges pasted against accused-respondent."

The case under consideration involved allegations of rape and violation of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant accused the defendant of establishing a sexual relationship under the pretext of marriage, only to later renege on the promise and make derogatory remarks about her caste.

Following the complainant's Appeal against the trial court's verdict, which acquitted the accused of rape but convicted him under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court scrutinized the evidence presented.

The accused contended that the relationship was consensual and cited discrepancies in the complainant's marital status and caste identity.

The Court observed that the complainant had concealed her previous marriage and failed to clarify her caste status, raising doubts about the veracity of her claims. "Therefore, it can be easily inferred that a lady who is already married and without dissolution of her earlier marriage and concealing her caste has maintained the physical relationship for good 5 years without any objection and hesitation and both of them have visited numbers of hotel, lodges at Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed the company of each other. It is difficult to adjudicate who is befooling whom", the court said.

Considering the circumstances, including the complainant's marital history and inconsistent statements, the Court concluded that the trial court's decision was justified. It underscored the mutual understanding and responsibility of both parties in maintaining a relationship over a prolonged period.

"We, therefore, find that the trial court has taken a plausible and possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above. We also do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable," the Court said.

The Court rejected the notion of the complainant being exploited by the accused, emphasizing the autonomy and awareness of both individuals involved. It deemed the accusations of sexual harassment and rape untenable in light of the evidence presented.

Consequently, the Bench ordered, "We have critically examined the entire judgement given by the learned trial judge and we are in the agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial judge, which deserves no interference from this Court in exercise of power under Section 372 Cr.P.C. The judgement and order is firm footed and this appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be REJECTED." Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Informant/Victim v. State of UP and Another [Neutral Citation No: 2024:AHC:102958-DB]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Ashutosh Mishra, Kripa Kant Pandey

Click here to read/download the Order