SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Jai Singh Alias Jaideep Rajpurohit - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2496 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP.

The court ruled that allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage must consider the maturity and consent of the parties involved, emphasizing that sexual relations do not compel marriage.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A(2) - IPC - Section 376(2)(n) - Appeal for bail - Allegations of rape based on false pretext of marriage - Court emphasized that sexual relations cannot be coerced into marriage and the maturity of the prosecutrix must be considered - The court found the allegations unconvincing and granted bail. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

(B) Legal principles - The court highlighted the importance of mutual consent in relationships and the need for a healthy legal approach towards accusations of rape based on promises of marriage. (Paras 5, 6)

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.

Particulars of the Case

 

1.

FIR Number

192/2023

2.

Concerned Police Station

Coat gate

3.

District

Bikaner

4.

Offences alleged in the FIR

Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

5.

Offences added, if any

--

6.

Date of passing of impugned order

03.11.2023

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. As per the allegations levelled in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she submitted herself before the petitioner on account of false pretext of marriage. He further submits that it is even mentioned in the FIR that she was in contact with the petitioner since last three months while continuing physical relationship. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. The incident alleged to have taken place does not inspire confidence rather seems to be very flimsy and unconvincing. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the present case, the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) Crimes 37 (Bom.), decided on 12.3.2014, will hold good. The relevant part of the above mentioned judgment reads as under:-

    "that to satisfy the sexual urge is a free decision of every major individual irrespective of gender. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioural pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue. Since many generations, virginity of a woman is considered precious and there is amoral taboo that it is a responsibility of a woman to be a virgin at the time of marriage. However, today, the young generation is exposed to different interactions with each other and is well informed about sexual activities; similarly, the late marriages and economic independence are also relevant factors. The society is trying to be liberated but carries baggage of different notions of morality wherein sex before marriage is a matter of censure and hence, it is a hush-hush subject. In fact, it is an issue before the social thinkers to educate and guide the society. Under such circumstances, a young woman who is in love with a boy forgets that to have sex is her option like her counterpart but somehow refuses to take the responsibility of her decision. If at all she has indulged into sexual activities even on a promise to marry, the girl may land up emotionally and physically in a pathetic situation after break up. To marry someone is a matter of choice. It cannot be imposed on anybody. Only because two individuals are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. Initially, a boy and a girl genuinely may want to marry and are true to their emotions and establish sexual relationship, however, after sometime, they may find that they are not mentally or physically compatible and one decides to withdraw from the relationship. Under such circumstances, nobody can compel these two persons to marry only because they had sexual relationship.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top