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

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29214

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
JAI SINGH ALIAS JAIDEEP RAJPUROHIT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 2496 / 2023



Advocates:
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

A promise to marry cannot be a condition for sexual relations; allegations of rape must be substantiated by credible evidence.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14 A(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 376(2)(n) - Appeal for bail - Accused-appellant contended that no case was made out against him, citing the prosecutrix's prior relationship and delay in filing the FIR - Court noted that the allegations appeared flimsy and unconvincing, emphasizing the need for a healthy legal approach to such cases. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

(B) Legal principles regarding consent and relationships - The court referenced a prior judgment emphasizing that a promise to marry cannot be a condition precedent for sexual relations, and that societal norms must be considered in such cases. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The accused-appellant was charged under IPC and SC/ST Act, with the prosecutrix alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage, despite a prior relationship.

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations unconvincing and granted bail, setting aside the lower court's order.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's allegations and the appropriateness of granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecutrix's prior relationship and the circumstances surrounding the allegations did not warrant denial of bail, emphasizing the need for a careful legal perspective on such matters.

Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted.

Order

23/01/2024

1. 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 14 A(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 Number192/2023
2.Concerned Police StationCoat gate
3.DistrictBikaner
4.Offences alleged in the FIRSections 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 03.11.2023
order

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 Vs. 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 behavioral 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. It is necessary to have a healthy, objective and legal approach towards these incidents. T

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top