Dismissing a rape case filed by a woman, the Jharkhand High Court on Monday (18 September) stated that the woman, who was married at the time, was fully aware of the potential consequences of engaging in a physical relationship with another person.
“Victim married V [name redacted] in the year 2018 as she was major; still without getting the marriage dissolved by the competent court of law, she established physical relation with the accused Abhishek Kumar Pal though on allurement to marry her. The victim being a major and married lady, was very well aware of the consequences of a physical relationship with another person, more so she had married in the year 2018. Therefore, the consent herein cannot be said to be obtained by the accused under misconception. Therefore, the allegations made in the FIR are believed that she was deceived by the accused,” the Court observed.
The woman alleged that the accused had lured her into a romantic relationship, engaging in physical intimacy, and pressuring her not to inform her parents about their relationship.
The accused then left to pursue his education and the woman got married to someone else. The accused continued to be in touch with the woman and promised to marry her. In 2019, the woman divorced her husband.
In 2020, the woman and the accused applied for marriage registration but the process was delayed owing to the COVID-19 lockdown. Meanwhile, the physical relations between the two continued.
When the woman disclosed their relationship to her parents, the family of the accused allegedly pressured him to refuse marriage, and the woman alleged criminal intimidation by the family of the accused.
A case was then filed against the accused, his brother, and his mother under Sections 376 (Punishment for rape), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court ruled that the accused could not be deemed to have obtained her consent under false pretence. The court also observed that the woman was still married to her former husband at the time of her physical relations with the accused.
The Court observed, “Indeed, no judicial divorce was taken by the informant-victim from her former husband. The divorce agreement, which is on record between the informant-victim and her former husband V, in which, by way of mutual agreement reduced in writing on Rs 20/- stamp the marriage dated 26.04.2018 between the victim-informant and V was dissolved, therefore, this marriage was not judicially dissolved by the competent court.”
“The victim was major since the very time when she came in contact with the accused and while during the love affairs of the victim with the accused Abhishek Kumar Pal at college time, the victim was major, while the accused was minor at that time being 2 years younger to the victim.”
Justice Chand further observed, “This agreement in regard to the dissolution of marriage is nothing but a waste paper which has not evidential value in the eye of the law. Since the marriage of the victim was solemnised with V on 26.04.2018′ but still after solemnisation of marriage, the victim continued in contact and established relation with the accused.”
The ruling came in a Criminal Revision filed against the order passed by the Sessions Court. Based on the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected, the Court said there was no sufficient ground to make out the offence under Section 376 of the IPC against the accused.
The order passed by the Court below was set-aside and the petitioner was discharged from the charge framed under Section 376 of the IPC.
