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
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 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.