22-05-2025
Rape charge not valid without proof of refusal to marry in long-term physical relationship: High court
Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh high court has ruled that the trial court cannot frame charges of rape against the male partner if the woman has failed to make clear allegations that the male partner refused to marry her, especially when both adult partners were knowingly into a long-term physical relationship.
"The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry. Therefore, the learned trial court was not justified in framing the charges for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC," held the bench headed by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while allowing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of fast-track court (rape/Pocso) at Nahan in Sirmaur district.
The court observed that there is not even a single clear averment made in the complaint by the alleged 30-year-old complainant that the accused refused to marry her or that the marriage between them became impossible.
The bench noticed that the complainant stated that the marriage was settled in 2014. The physical relations were maintained in 2015 and thereafter. The betrothal ceremony took place in 2015, and the date of marriage was fixed on Feb 28, 2017, but the marriage could not be performed due to a mishap in the male partner's family.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Scalable retail: Video analytics firm enables more traffic thanks to robust computing power - Google Cloud: Future of Infrastructure
CIO | Google Cloud, AMD
Undo
The marriage was then fixed in 2019, later postponed to 2020-21, and an alleged dowry demand of Rs 5 lakh and a big vehicle was made in 2021. On the complaint of the woman's family, an FIR was filed by the police. Later, the trial court on June 28, 2024, framed charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
However, the high court found that it is apparent, as per the statements of eyewitnesses, the dowry demand was not made by the accused male partner, and there was no material before the trial court to frame charges against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The bench also quoted a Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs State of Maharashtra, in which it was held that where a person acts after knowing about its consequences, it indicates her consent. When the prosecution alleges that a sexual relationship was maintained by making a false promise, such a physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances.
When the relationship continued for a prolonged period, it cannot be said that the same was a result of a promise to marry, the apex court had cleared. MSID:: 121341915 413 |
