Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D. M. VYAS, JJ
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH ALIAS RAKESH HARDASBHAI SOLANKI – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1387 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For the Respondents: MR PREMAL R JOSHI, MRS KIRAN P JOSHI
Consensual sexual intercourse between adult individuals does not constitute rape under the IPC, especially when no coercion is established.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506(2) - Rape - Acquittal by trial Court - Consensual sexual intercourse between adult individuals does not amount to unlawful rape - Evidence establishes no coercion was involved - Appeal against acquittal dismissed as trial Court's findings were sustainable. (Paras 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)
(B) Standard of proof in rape cases - Victim's consent and age are critical in determining the nature of sexual relationship, especially where an alleged promise of marriage exists. (Paras 3.3)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a 22-year-old major girl, consensually engaged in sexual activities with the accused, which she later reported as rape upon becoming pregnant. The accused denied coercion.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found no legal flaw in concluding the sexual acts were consensual; thus, the acquittal was maintained.
Issues: The main legal question was whether consensual sex under the promise of marriage constituted rape when the victim was an adult.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that consensual sexual acts do not constitute rape, reaffirming the necessity of consent and the absence of coercion in determining legal culpability.
Result: Appeal dismissed, confirming trial Court's acquittal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and initial facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of consent and sexual relationship dynamics. (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion and summary of the court's decision. (Para 4 , 5) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.04.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhalia, whereby, the respondent, who is the sole accused in the said case, was acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (IPC).
2. Facts of the prosecution lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follow:
2.1 The victim girl is aged about 22 years and she is a major. There is a scrap shop situate opposite to her house. The accused used to come to the said shop. So both, the accused and the complainant, got acquaintance when he used to come to the said shop. It is stated that the accused expressed that he is in love with her and that he intends to marry her. Therefore, she accepted his proposal and they had a love affair. It is further stated that the accused promised to marry her and when she was alone in her house that he used to come to her house and had sexual intercourse with her. They had repeated sexual intercourse with each other for about 6 or 7 times. The victim girl became pregnant. When she insisted the accused to marry her he used to avoid her. Therefore, when she was seven months’ pregnant, then she disclosed about the said fact relating to their love affair and that the accused made her pregnant to her parents and relatives. At their instance, she lodged a report with the police on 19.03.2012. The said report was registered as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC. The case was investigated. The victim was sent for medical examination. The doctor who examined her opined that she is pregnant.
2.2 After completion of the investigation, the police laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. After the accused made his appearance in the trial Court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC were framed against him and the same were explained to him. He denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
2.3 During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-19 witnesses and got marked 39 exhibits – documents to prove its case against the accused.
2.4 At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the said charges levelled against him and acquitted him of the said charges by the impugned judgment.
2.5 Therefore, aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal assailing the legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Krina Calla for the State and learned advocate Ms. Kiran P. Joshi for the respondent.
3.1 Admittedly, the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years at the relevant time when both, the victim and the accused, had love affair with each other and indulged in sexual intercourse. Though, it is stated that the accused promised to marry her and thereby, had sexual intercourse with her and committed rape on her, as the victim girl is a major aged about 22 years and as it is a consensual sexual intercourse which she had with the accused, it does not amount to committing an offence of rape. It is a clear case of consent. There is nothing to indicate from the evidence of the prosecutrix who is examined as PW-9 that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and against her consent. A reading of her evidence clearly proves that she had sexual intercourse with the accused with her consent. Therefore, no offence of rape as defined under Section 37
