Long-term live-in implies consent, refusal to marry not rape: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a trial court's acquittal of a man in a rape and unnatural sex case arising from a live-in relationship, holding that a long-term live-in relationship gives rise to a presumption of consent and that a subsequent refusal to marry, by itself, does not amount to rape.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that in a long-term live-in relationship, consent to a physical relationship is presumed. A man's subsequent refusal to marry, by itself, would not amount to rape. The court made the observation on June 29 while dismissing a woman's appeal against the acquittal of a man who had faced charges of rape and unnatural sex.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay S Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas said that even if partners in a live-in relationship express a desire to marry in future, that fact alone does not establish that their physical relationship existed only because of a promise of marriage, reported Bar and Bench. The Bench said courts must examine the duration of the relationship and the conduct of the parties while considering whether consent can be presumed, reported Bar and Bench.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a 40-year-old project manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation. She alleged that she met the accused in 2019 while pursuing an MBA at the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur. According to her, the accused promised to marry her, following which they entered into a physical relationship and lived together for about two years.
The woman alleged that after they completed their MBA, the accused started avoiding discussions about marriage and later told her that his parents opposed the marriage because she was older, a divorcee and a Christian. She also alleged that on November 28, 2021, when she went to his residence and again asked him to marry her, he forced her to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes.
An FIR was registered in December 2022 under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court later acquitted the accused after holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The woman then approached the High Court against that acquittal.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court referred to the woman’s cross-examination, where she admitted that she was willing to settle the dispute before the Women’s Commission for Rs 30 lakh. The court noted that the accused had issued a cheque of Rs 15 lakh as part of the proposed settlement, but payment on the cheque was later stopped after the settlement did not materialise.
The Bench also noted her admission that she and the accused had agreed to marry only if their respective families gave consent. It referred as well to the evidence of her brother, who said that she had told him that the physical relationship developed because they were in a love affair despite belonging to different communities.
The court further relied on the testimony of the doctor who examined the woman. According to the doctor, she did not complain during the medical examination of forced sexual intercourse or unnatural sex, and no injuries were found that suggested unnatural sexual intercourse.
Setting out its view, the Bench said, “In a long-drawn live-in relationship a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.” It added that with more women becoming financially independent, courts should not take a “pedantic approach” in such cases, but should instead consider the length of the relationship and the conduct of the parties.
On that basis, the High Court said the trial court was right in concluding that the relationship between the parties was consensual. Referring to the trial court’s finding that the parties had been in a long relationship and that the physical relationship was consensual, the Bench said that view was consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It accordingly upheld the acquittal of the accused and dismissed the woman’s appeal.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that in a long-term live-in relationship, consent to a physical relationship is presumed. A man's subsequent refusal to marry, by itself, would not amount to rape. The court made the observation on June 29 while dismissing a woman's appeal against the acquittal of a man who had faced charges of rape and unnatural sex.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay S Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas said that even if partners in a live-in relationship express a desire to marry in future, that fact alone does not establish that their physical relationship existed only because of a promise of marriage, reported Bar and Bench. The Bench said courts must examine the duration of the relationship and the conduct of the parties while considering whether consent can be presumed, reported Bar and Bench.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a 40-year-old project manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation. She alleged that she met the accused in 2019 while pursuing an MBA at the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur. According to her, the accused promised to marry her, following which they entered into a physical relationship and lived together for about two years.
The woman alleged that after they completed their MBA, the accused started avoiding discussions about marriage and later told her that his parents opposed the marriage because she was older, a divorcee and a Christian. She also alleged that on November 28, 2021, when she went to his residence and again asked him to marry her, he forced her to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes.
An FIR was registered in December 2022 under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court later acquitted the accused after holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The woman then approached the High Court against that acquittal.
While hearing the appeal, the High Court referred to the woman’s cross-examination, where she admitted that she was willing to settle the dispute before the Women’s Commission for Rs 30 lakh. The court noted that the accused had issued a cheque of Rs 15 lakh as part of the proposed settlement, but payment on the cheque was later stopped after the settlement did not materialise.
The Bench also noted her admission that she and the accused had agreed to marry only if their respective families gave consent. It referred as well to the evidence of her brother, who said that she had told him that the physical relationship developed because they were in a love affair despite belonging to different communities.
The court further relied on the testimony of the doctor who examined the woman. According to the doctor, she did not complain during the medical examination of forced sexual intercourse or unnatural sex, and no injuries were found that suggested unnatural sexual intercourse.
Setting out its view, the Bench said, “In a long-drawn live-in relationship a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences.” It added that with more women becoming financially independent, courts should not take a “pedantic approach” in such cases, but should instead consider the length of the relationship and the conduct of the parties.
On that basis, the High Court said the trial court was right in concluding that the relationship between the parties was consensual. Referring to the trial court’s finding that the parties had been in a long relationship and that the physical relationship was consensual, the Bench said that view was consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It accordingly upheld the acquittal of the accused and dismissed the woman’s appeal.
