Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 2858
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
SODE VISHNU NARAYANA SHIVAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. – Respondent
CRLRC/1476/2011
Sexual intercourse between a husband and wife does not constitute rape under IPC when the relationship is consensual and the wife is above the age of consent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 and 376 - Criminal Revision Case - The petitioner-accused challenged the conviction for rape, asserting that the relationship was consensual and that he is the husband of the victim, thus falling under Exception 2 of Section 375 - The trial court acquitted him of Section 417 IPC but convicted him under Section 376 IPC - The appellate court confirmed the conviction - The court found that the relationship was consensual and that the essential ingredients of rape were not established, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case. (Paras 11, 14, 15)
(B) Consent in Marriage - The court emphasized that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife does not constitute rape under IPC when the wife is above the age of consent and the relationship is consensual. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The accused, after promising to marry the victim, had sexual intercourse with her multiple times, leading to her pregnancy. They married on 26.01.2009 but later the accused deserted her, prompting the victim to file a complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the relationship was consensual, and the accused, being the husband, could not be convicted under Section 376 IPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the relationship was consensual and if the accused could be convicted under Section 376 IPC given the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the relationship was consensual and that the accused, being the husband, fell under Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, thus negating the charge of rape.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed; the petitioner-accused acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC.
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 23.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2019 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 29.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.564 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused are under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
02. Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.
03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the accused used to visit the house of the victim as he is friend of her brothers. The victim and the accused got acquainted with each other. On 25.11.2008 at about 08:00 PM., when the victim went to outskirts of the village for attending calls of nature, the accused followed her by concealing his movements and made her to fall on the ground and committed rape upon her by threatening with knife. Later, the accused promised to marry her. Thereafter, the accused had sexual intercourse with her several times. Due to which she became pregnant. On 26.01.2009 the accused married the victim at Kothagudem and got photographed the marriage. They led marital life at Kothaguem. The accused took Rs.40,000/- from the victim for the purpose of business. Thereafter, he went away to Khammam and did not return. The victim went back to Madharam, where she met the accused. The accused refused to continue his marital life with the victim. For which, a report was filed before the Police.
04. After investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. The learned trial Court after conducting the full-fledged trial, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Aggrieved the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, the petitioner- accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
05. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-accused.
06. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not made out the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 376 of IPC and the learned trial Court ought to have seen that after the alleged incident, the complainant lived together being wife and husband and that the sexual relationship between the wife and husband do not amount to rape. There is a delay of more than 3 months in lodging the complaint. Hence, he prayed to set aside the Judgments of learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.
08. Both the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and came to a concurrent conclusion that the offence under Section 417 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner-accused and accordingly, acquitted the petitioner-accused for the said charge. There is no appeal challenging the said acquittal. The said concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court, have a
