judgement
Subject : Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses
The case involved a man accused of raping a woman with whom he had a consensual relationship for nearly two years. The woman had filed a first information report (FIR) alleging that the man had forced her to have sexual intercourse with him on the false promise of marriage.
The man's counsel argued that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and there was no criminal element involved. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the man had induced the woman to have a sexual relationship on the basis of a false promise of marriage, which would amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court carefully examined the statements of the woman recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the statements were contradictory and that the woman had voluntarily accompanied the man to a temple, where she had taken a bath under a waterfall. The court also noted that the crucial evidence, such as the photographs allegedly taken by the man and the affidavits and stamp papers, had not been seized by the police.
The court held that the physical relationship between the parties could not be said to be against the woman's will and without her consent. The court further observed that there was no "misconception of fact" that would vitiate the woman's consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court and quashed the proceedings in the rape case against the man. The court concluded that compelling the man to face a criminal trial on the available materials would be an abuse of the process of the court, as the result of the trial would be a foregone conclusion.
The judgment highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the collection of credible evidence in cases involving allegations of rape. It also underscores the need to carefully examine the issue of consent in such cases, particularly when the relationship between the parties was allegedly consensual.
#SupremeCourt #RapeCharges #ConsentualRelationship #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Belated Challenge by Non-Bidders to GeM Tender Conditions for School Sports Equipment Not Maintainable: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Clears Thakur, Verma in Hate Speech Case
01 May 2026
Appointment of Central Govt Employees as Vote Counting Staff Valid Under ECI Delegation: Calcutta HC
01 May 2026
Arrest Memo with Essential Allegations Satisfies Article 22(1) Grounds Requirement: Uttarakhand High Court
01 May 2026
Karnataka HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable for Copyright Infringement in Film Certification; Remedy Lies in Civil Suit
01 May 2026
Comedy Show Remarks Without Deliberate Malicious Intent Don't Attract Section 295A IPC: Bombay HC Quashes FIR
01 May 2026
Decrees from Indian Courts Not 'Foreign Judgments' Under Portuguese CPC 1939: Bombay HC at Goa
01 May 2026
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Kannur Corporation's Challenge to Kerala HC Siren Discontinuation Order
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.