Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Velmurugan - Appellant
Vs.
The State, represented by, The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No.65 of 2024
Decided On : 09-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case details and trial proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant arguments on consensual relationship (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. supreme court precedents on consent (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court findings on consensual nature (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. appeal allowed, conviction set aside (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, in S.C.No.223 of 2020, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant/PW1 is as follows:-
2.1. On 16.09.2019, the victim/second daughter of the de facto complainant (PW2), who got separated from her husband before the village panchayat, was found lying unconscious after having consumed pesticide. Subsequently, she was taken to the Government General Hospital, Thirukovilur.
2.2 Upon enquiry, after regaining senses, she stated that she became acquainted with the appellant/A1, who, on the promise of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, took her earnings and thereafter, reneged.
2.3. On account of the same, on 16.09.2019, the victim/PW2 herself went to the house of the appellant/A1 and informed his family members, who are ranked as A2 to A5, about their relationship. Upon hearing the same, the family members of the appellant/A1 abused the victim/PW2 in filthy language, assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, unable to bear the humiliation caused by the accused, the victim attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. Hence, the accused have been charged as under:-
| Rank | Charges |
|---|---|
| A1 | Sections 376 & 417 of IPC |
| A2 to A5 | Sections 294(b), 506(I) and 309 of IPC r/w 109 of IPC and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. |
3. However, only the appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and the other accused were acquitted. The appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Section | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 417 of IPC | One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| 376 of IPC | Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. |
| The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |
4. Brief facts of the case, as evinced from the prosecution witnesses and other materials available on record, are as under:-
4.1. PW1, the de facto complainant, is the father of the victim/PW2. The victim/PW2 was working in Tiruppur. PW2 and the appellant/A1 were in love. However, she was married to one Balamurugan in the year 2015 by her parents against her wishes and later, they got separated due to matrimonial discord.
4.2. Thereafter, the appellant/A1 contacted the victim/PW2 and on the promise of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, the victim/PW2 became pregnant and on coming to know about the same, the accused bought her pills and caused termination of the pregnancy. Further, they lived together in Tiruppur, where the victim/PW2 was employed. Even during such time, the appellant/A1 had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim/PW2.
4.3. However, later, the appellant/A1 ignored her and refused to marry her. Further, the parents and siblings of the appellant/A1 also refused to consent to their marriage, abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. Due to the humiliation caused by the accused, she consumed pesticide and was later taken to hospital by the de facto complainant/PW1.
4.4. Thereupon, the de facto complainant/PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) on 17.09.2019. Based on the said complaint, PW12, Grade-I Police Constable registered a case in C.S.R.No.476 of 2019 and submitted the same before PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who, after enquiry, registered the First Information Report (Ex.P12), in Crime No.50 of 2019 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sect
Prolonged consensual relationship turning sour does not constitute rape or cheating under Sections 376/417 IPC.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
