Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Accused, Finds Consensual Relationship

Background

The case involved a defacto complainant who alleged that the accused, who was the driver of a Tempo Van used by the complainant and her family for a tour program to Kodaikanal in 2005, made intimacy with her through mobile phone and other means. The complainant further alleged that the accused subjected her to rape on the back seat of the Tempo Van on July 17, 2005, and also photographed the visuals, thereby outraging her modesty.

The complainant also alleged that the accused raped her on November 16, 2011, in a room at IV Cottage Lodge in Munnar , and on October 17, 2015, and September 30, 2016, at homestay lodges near Munnar and Marayoor Gramapanchayat, respectively.

Arguments

The accused's counsel argued that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was purely consensual, and the complainant had not lodged any complaint until 2011, six years after the alleged incident in 2005. The counsel further argued that the complainant had continued to have sexual intercourse with the accused in 2011 and 2015, indicating a consensual relationship.

The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the consent given by the complainant was under a misconception of fact, as the accused had promised to marry her, which was a false promise.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court examined the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue of consent and misconception of fact. The court found that the materials on record prima facie showed that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual, and the complainant had continued to have sexual intercourse with the accused even after the alleged incidents in 2005, 2011, and 2015.

The court held that the consent given by the complainant could not be considered as a misconception of fact, as there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had no intention to marry the complainant from the very beginning. The court also noted that the complainant was an educated woman and was aware of the complications and issues surrounding her marriage to the accused.

Decision

The court, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings against the accused in all three cases, finding that the relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual and did not amount to rape.

The court's decision highlights the importance of carefully examining the issue of consent and misconception of fact in cases involving allegations of rape, and the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case.