A Person Cannot Be Tried For Rape Merely Because A Mutual Relationship Turned Sour - Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court discharged a man accused of raping his girlfriend and observed that when two matured persons invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other was accused of rape after relationship turned sour, and the relationship did not ultimately culminate into a marriage.
The Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that “The prosecutrix is sufficiently of matured age to be conscious of the relationship, both physical and mental, and merely because, the relationship had now turned sour, it cannot be inferred that the physical relationship established with her, on every occasion, was against her will and without her consent.”
Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for the applicant and APP P.N. Dabholkar appeared for the respondent- State.
In this case, a revision application was filed by the applicant-accused against the Trial Court’s order whereby the Court refused to discharge him in the case filed by the respondent, his ex on the ground that the case was not of a consensual relationship because sometimes intercourse was forceful.
It was alleged by the respondent that relation was on the promise of marriage but when she asked for it, he refused. The relationship turned sour, and an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
The High Court observed that the couple was in relationship for 8 long years, and it could not be said that she consented for sex only because she was under misconception that he was going to marry her but rather the respondent was in love with the applicant.
“...Since the couple used to meet in isolation, with no indication that on every occasion when the physical relationship was established, the promise of marriage was made, when she has unequivocally consented to the physical indulgence, without any grievance being made till she lodged the FIR on 17.02.2016, I do not think that sufficient ground exist to proceed against the Applicant by charging him under Section 376 of the IPC.” the Court further observed.
Therefore, “...refusal to discharge the accused by the impugned order by exercising power available in the said Court, cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation, that at some time intercourse was forcible.” said the Court.
Accordingly, the Revision Application was allowed, and the applicant was discharged.
Cause Title- Sameer Amut Kondekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
