The Bilaspur Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex; and if the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. The Court therefore ruled that acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.
In an appeal from acquittal, if the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, the mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal, added the Court, while emphasising that in the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, the appellate Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal noted that during cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that when the accused took her inside the hut and established physical relations, she did not shout or raise an alarm, and she did not try to escape because they liked each other and the accused had promised to marry her. The prosecutrix admitted that she lived with the accused for seven years, did not file any claim or suit in any court regarding his failure to marry her, and willingly had a sexual relationship with him at the Dharmshala.
The Bench also found that the prosecutrix admitted that in 2021, she did not file any complaint at the police station regarding the accused abandoning her, and she lodged the report after a passage of 2 months and 18 days, for which no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming on record. The medical examination of the prosecutrix showed no signs or evidence of recent sexual intercourse, and there were no injuries, marks, or other indications to suggest that any force or physical coercion had been used against her.
As the F.S.L. report indicated that no semen was found in the seized articles, including the vaginal slide, pubic hair, axillary hair, and clothes of the prosecutrix, the Bench observed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of the appellant, being an educated major lady who was around 23 years old seven years ago, indicating she was a mature adult capable of making her own decisions.
Thus, the Bench observed that the admission of the prosecutrix clearly indicates that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused was consensual in nature, underscoring the fact that she willingly participated in the cohabitation, thereby demonstrating her autonomy.
Briefly, the prosecutrix, aged about 30 years, met the accused in the year 2013 while studying in Girls College, Raigarh, and they got acquainted with each other. In the year 2014, the marriage of the prosecutrix was fixed with a resident of village Jatri, but the accused proposed marriage to the prosecutrix over the phone came to Chandrapur. The accused took her to a hut near her residence and under the pretext of marriage, forced her into a physical relationship, despite her refusal, and subsequently took her by bus to Raigarh, keeping her in a hospice for about seven days.
Later, the accused took the prosecutrix to Ambikapur and on the pretext of marriage kept the prosecutrix with him for seven years, during which he used to make sexual relationships with her. Again in 2021, the accused took the prosecutrix to Chandrapur under the pretext of meeting her parents, abandoned her on the road, and fled, following which a report was lodged under Sections 376 and 417 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1 of the offence under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 417 of IPC, against which the appeal was filed by the complainant/appellant.
Appearances:
Advocate Arvind Shrivastava, for the Appellant
Advocates Shristi Singh, Arpan Verma, and Himanshu Yadu, for the Respondents
