The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a consensual relationship between two adults cannot automatically become a rape case due to delayed marriage. The Court acquitted Aalim Ansari, setting aside his conviction and seven-year sentence under Section 376 IPC.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a consensual physical relationship between two consenting adults cannot be treated as rape solely because the couple did not marry immediately.
While allowing the appeal of Aalim Ansari, the court set aside his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where he had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000.
The complainant had filed a complaint in January 2012, alleging that Ansari maintained physical relations with her for about eight months on the assurance that he would marry her. She claimed that after she became pregnant and repeatedly asked him to solemnise the marriage, he delayed the process and later refused, leading her to approach the police.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: “Live-In Relationship Goes Against Women’s Interest”
Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 493, and 506 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the trial court framed charges only under Section 376 IPC.
During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including panchayat members, the prosecutrix, the investigating officer, and the doctor who medically examined the woman.
Several witnesses testified that a panchayat meeting had been convened after the woman became pregnant, and that Ansari had initially agreed to marry her but later backed out. However, the High Court observed that the evidence that surfaced during cross-examination presented a different scenario.
In particular, the prosecutrix admitted that she and the appellant were in a relationship before the case and that they later married. She also told the court that she was happy in the relationship and that they had two children. She further acknowledged that the criminal case had been filed before their marriage was officially solemnised.
The father of the prosecutrix and another prosecution witness also conceded that the two parties were already husband and wife.
Ansari’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual from beginning to end and that the case was essentially filed due to the delay in solemnising the marriage after the woman conceived. They maintained that both parties were majors, understood the implications of their relationship, and eventually married—making the conviction legally unsustainable.
The State opposed the appeal, supporting the trial court’s conviction. After reviewing the record, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC.
Also Read: Delhi High Court: Adolescents Should Have Romantic Relationships Without Legal Fear
The court noted that the parties were adults and that the relationship appeared to be consensual. It also held that the prosecutrix’s own testimony undermined the claim that her consent was obtained by deception.
The court observed,
“Merely having a sexual relationship and the bald statement that on the false pretext of marriage, the consent has been obtained, is not enough to convict the appellant,”
The Court Further added that,
“Even this factual matrix has been negated by the victim in her deposition.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the trial court’s judgment and the associated sentence.
Since Ansari was already on bail during the pendency of the appeal, the court discharged him from the liabilities of his bail bonds and directed that the trial court records be returned to the concerned court forthwith.