While dismissing the rape case, the Supreme Court court has instructed the accused-appellant to provide a sum of Rs5 lakh to the woman. This payment is to be made without any impact on her entitlement to seek maintenance for both herself and the child born from their relationship. This directive is based on the acknowledgment that he legally accepted her as his wife and recognized the daughter as his offspring.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of Sheikh Arif vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr, addressing the complexities surrounding consent in cases of alleged rape. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emphasized that a rape charge hinges on whether the consent for a physical relationship was obtained under false pretenses or a misconceived promise of marriage.
The case originated from a complaint filed in 2018 by a 24-year-old woman belonging to the SC/ST category. She accused Sheikh Arif of engaging in physical relations with her under the promise of marriage, which resulted in the birth of a daughter. The woman’s complaint was lodged after she discovered that Arif had married another woman in February 2018.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Accused Jolly Joseph in Koodathayi Murders Case
The Supreme Court, in its deliberation, found it implausible that the woman maintained a physical relationship from 2013 to 2017 based solely on a false promise of marriage. The court noted:
“Though she claimed that it was a forced relationship, she did not make any grievance about it till February 2018.”
This observation was crucial in determining the nature of consent in the relationship.
Arif’s defense contended that the relationship was consensual and that he had, in fact, married the woman in January 2017, thus negating the abuse of law in his prosecution. The court acknowledged that the relationship resulted in pregnancy in 2013 but continued until 2017, with an engagement ceremony reportedly taking place in July 2017.
Referencing the ‘Anurag Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh’ judgment, the bench clarified that consent based on a misconception is not voluntary and therefore immaterial. If it is proven that the consent was a result of a false promise to marry from the beginning, then it does not constitute consent, and a rape offense is established.
The court concluded,
“Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the woman maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case will be a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.”
Additionally, the court directed Arif to pay Rs5 lakh to the woman, acknowledging her as his legally wedded wife and the mother of his child, without affecting her right to claim maintenance. Furthermore, Rs 10 lakh already deposited by Arif with the High Court was ordered to be invested in a fixed deposit until the child reached majority.
The judgment also mentioned a doctor who treated the woman during her pregnancy, recording a statement that she had referred to Arif as her husband. Although Arif could not produce a ‘Nikahnama’, the police recorded a statement from one Burhanuddin, confirming the performance of ‘Nikah’ between Arif and the woman.
This ruling by the Supreme Court marks a significant step in understanding the nuances of consent and the legal implications of relationships based on promises of marriage. It underscores the need for clear, voluntary consent in relationships and the legal repercussions when such consent is obtained under false pretenses.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
