The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a long-term live-in relationship between consenting adults creates a presumption of consensual physical relations. The Court ruled that a later refusal to marry cannot automatically amount to rape and dismissed an appeal challenging the accused’s acquittal.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that when consenting adults remain in a long-term live-in relationship, there is a presumption that the physical relationship was consensual; therefore, a later refusal to marry cannot automatically lead to prosecution for rape. In a division bench decision, Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed an appeal against acquittal filed by a 40-year-old woman.
The appellant challenged the trial court’s decision acquitting Siddharth Sarangi of offences under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The appellant, who is employed as a Project Manager with the Municipal Corporation Bhilai, came to know the accused in April 2019. She said this was after she secured admission to the MBA programme at IIM Raipur.
According to complaints dated December 20, 2022, she alleged that on July 5, 2019, the accused invited her to his residence on the pretext that they would study together with classmates yet she found no other students at the house. She claimed that the accused expressed a wish to establish a physical relationship and promised to marry her, despite her objections. On that assurance, she entered into a physical relationship.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: “Live-In Relationship Goes Against Women’s Interest”
The parties then reportedly lived together for nearly two years as a live-in couple. The appellant alleged that the accused repeatedly avoided her requests for marriage. She further stated that on August 29, 2021, the accused told her his parents opposed the relationship on grounds including her age, her status as a divorcee, and her Christian faith.
She alleged that on November 28, 2021, when she went to his residence to press for marriage, he subjected her to “unnatural sexual intercourse” against her will. The matter was then placed before the Women’s Commission, where a financial settlement of Rs. 30,00,000 was discussed. The accused allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000, but the payment was stopped because the appellant did not sign the corresponding agreement. She later returned the cheque to the Commission and lodged an FIR on December 20, 2022.
After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur acquitted the accused on June 24, 2025, concluding that the relationship was consensual.
Arguments of Parties
Appellant’s submission: The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court did not correctly evaluate the evidence. She contended that the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of rape asserting that physical relations occurred on multiple occasions under a false promise of marriage, which the accused later refused to honour.
Respondent’s submission (acquitted accused): The counsel for the accused argued that the appellant was an educated, highly qualified woman who continued the relationship for more than three years without disclosing it to anyone. He asserted that the relationship was consensual and that a prolonged live-in relationship creates a presumption of consent. He also emphasised that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and that interference is warranted only if the acquittal is shown to be perverse or illegal. He relied on Supreme Court rulings in support of his position.
Also Read: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
State’s view: The Deputy Advocate General representing the State supported the appellant’s case, arguing that the acquittal was contrary to the record.
Court’s analysis and reasoning
After examining the evidence, the High Court observed that the appellant was 40 years old and therefore fully aware of the nature and consequences of entering a physical relationship. The bench also noted that the parties cohabited in a live-in relationship for almost two years, indicating a sustained and consensual arrangement rather than a transient episode.
The court further remarked that the dispute later appeared to become primarily about money particularly after the settlement failed through the Women’s Commission process.
The High Court also found that medical evidence did not support the allegation of “unnatural sex.” Dr. Vidya Shiv Kumar (PW/4) acknowledged in cross-examination that the appellant made no complaints of forceful or unnatural sex during examination and that there were no corresponding physical injuries.
Also Read: Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code | Only One Live-In Relationship Registered in 10 Days
For its legal conclusions, the High Court relied substantially on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. The bench reproduced key portions of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, observing:
“In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as a live-in couple. In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.”
The High Court also cited the Supreme Court’s observations on implied consent in long-term live-in relationships:
“Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish… Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”
On applying these principles, the High Court held that the long-term nature of the relationship gave rise to a presumption of valid consent.
The High Court concluded that the trial court committed no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in its findings. Since the physical relationship was treated as consensual, the accused could not be held liable for rape solely because he later refused to marry.
Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Case Title: Xyz Vs Siddharth Sarangi and Another ACQA No. 380 of 2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE