Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D. M. VYAS, JJ
RAVAL PINALBEN BHARATBHAI – Appellant
Versus
JITENDRAKUMAR @ JITUBHAI @ KALABHAI RAVAL – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 903 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.JAY S SHAH,
For the Respondents: MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP
The court affirmed that consent in a pre-existing relationship negates the charge of rape, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376
(C) - Rape allegation - Acquittal of accused upheld by appellate court due to lack of force or consent in sexual relation established. The victim, being a major, was found to have an ongoing consent-based relationship with the accused, undermining the grounds for the rape charge. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 8)
(B) Fiduciary relationship - The court determined no fiduciary relationship existed between the victim and the accused, relevant to Section 376
(C) applicability. Therefore, trial court’s judgment of acquittal is justified due to the victim’s consent during their interactions. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The case concerned allegations of rape against a family member, where the victim, an adult, had consensual relations with the accused prior to the alleged incident. A key detail involved the victim’s relationship history with her husband impacting the trial's outcome.
Findings of Court:
The evidence established a consenting relationship rather than forcible acts defined under rape law, validating the trial court's acquittal.
Issues: The central question was the presence of consent in the alleged sexual acts and whether a fiduciary relationship applied under law.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that consent negates the elements of force needed to establish rape, affirming legal interpretations around consent and fiduciary relationships.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeal and overview of previous judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts surrounding the alleged incident and relationship context. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of victim's consent negating rape charge. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments relating to fiduciary relationship and consent. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's final decision and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 8) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 17/02/2025 passed in Sessions Case No.83 of 2023 came up before us today for admission.
2. We have hared learned counsel for the appellant at length. We have perused the grounds of appeal and the copy of the judgment of the trial court and the material available on record furnished in the paper-book by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The victim is a major and aged about 22 years and she is a grown up woman. She is also a married woman. The first respondent who is the sole accused in the said case is her relative. He is the husband of the younger sister of her mother and he is aged about 39 years. As per the allegations ascribed in the FIR, the accused committed rape on her twice earlier and thereafter after she was married and when all the family members went to Mount Abu that they all have taken alcohol drink and when her husband was unconscious and in intoxicated state that the accused came to her room and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The said incident took place on 04/02/2023. It is stated that when they were indulged in sexual intercourse in the said room that her husband suddenly came into consciousness and has seen both of them i.e. the prosecutrix and the accused indulging in sexual intercourse. Thereafter, after three months i.e. on
26/05/2023, the FIR came to be lodged.
4. During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) before the learned Magistrate at the instance of the Investigating Officer. In her statement given before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C she has categorically stated that she had a love affair with the accused for the last six years prior to the date of recording the said statement.
5. At the culmination of the trial, while appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecutrix is a major aged about 22 years and she is a married woman and her evidence given in the court that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her is not correct as she admitted in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that she had a love affair with the accused for the last six years and as such the trial court held that if at all there is any such sexual intercourse between both of them that it is a case of consent and that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent and there is no offence of rape committed on her. Therefore, the trial court recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused.
6. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the medical evidence on record. Upon re-appraisal of the said evidence on record, we absolutely do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Admittedly the prosecutrix is a major and a grown up woman of 22 years. The accused is a married man aged about 39 years. He is none other than the husband of the younger sister of the mother of the prosecutrix. She maintained an affair with him. When earlier there was a sexual intercourse between both of them twice, she did not inform about the incident to any one stating that the accused has committed rape on her. Thereafter she was married. Even after her marriage again she indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused when they all went to Mount Abu when her husband was in an unconscious state on account of taking alcoho
