The Supreme Court dismissed a rape case against a man who was accused after a 16-year-long relationship. The court ruled that the case stemmed from a failed love affair rather than criminal intent. Emphasizing the need to differentiate between consent and allegations of coercion, the bench found no grounds for prosecution. The verdict highlights concerns over misuse of legal provisions in personal disputes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a rape case against a man accused of sexual exploitation by a woman after a 16-year relationship.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that the extended duration of the relationship indicated that there was no element of force or deceit involved.
The Court rejected the claim that the sexual relationship arose from a false promise of marriage.
The Court noted,
“It is clear that the complainant, being a highly qualified major woman, continued in a consensual intimate sexual relationship with the appellant over a period of 16 years. At some point, the relationship soured, leading to the filing of the FIR. No reasonable man would accept the version that the complainant allowed the accused to establish sexual relations with her purely under the misconception of marriage,”
The woman had alleged she was raped by the accused in 2006 at her home but remained silent due to his promise to marry her. She also accused him of video-recording their sexual acts in 2009 after intoxicating her and claimed he forced her to terminate a pregnancy.
The complainant finally reported the matter to the police in 2022 after learning of the accused’s marriage to another woman.
In seeking to quash the case, the accused argued that the relationship was consensual.
However, the State and the complainant maintained that he had falsely assured her of marriage and subsequently exploited her. The Court dismissed the allegation of rape in 2006, stating it was hard to believe that a well-educated woman would have been subjected to forcible intercourse by an outsider in her own home.
The Court expressed skepticism regarding the complainant’s narrative, suggesting it appeared to be a “well-orchestrated story.”
It highlighted contradictions in her claims, particularly noting that the first act of sexual relations allegedly occurred in her home, where her parents were present, casting doubt on her account.
Furthermore, the Court found it implausible that, after three years of consensual intimacy, the accused would need to drug the complainant to establish sexual relations. It emphasized that they lived in different towns, and there was no pressure preventing her from filing a complaint earlier.
The complainant had also portrayed herself as the accused’s wife on multiple occasions, which undermined her allegations of deceit.
The Court concluded that the FIR was filed only after the complainant learned of the accused’s impending marriage to another woman.
The significant gap of 16 years between the initial act of sexual intercourse and the filing of the FIR led the Court to determine that this was a case of a love affair that had turned sour.
While quashing the FIR, it held,
“Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can this Court be convinced that the appellant is liable to be prosecuted for having sexually exploited/assaulted the complainant based on a false promise of marriage. The allegations of the complainant are full of material contradictions and are ex facie unbelievable,”
Representing the petitioner were advocates Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Anjale Kumari, Gopal Singh, Vishal Thakre, Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Ashwani Garg, Tota Ram, and Sanjeev Malhotra.
Advocates Ankit Goel, Vikas Bansal, Harshit Singhal, Nitin Meshram, Saurabh Singh, Rishi Raj Singh, and Ranbir Singh Yadav represented the respondents.
Case Title: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v State of UP and Anr
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
