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
Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act Prevail Over Detention Period Claims: High Court of J&K and Ladakh
11 Mar 2026
Failure to Pay Compensation Vitiates Limitation Claims in Land Acquisition: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
04 Mar 2026
Discretionary Nature of Section 143-A NI Act: J&K&L High Court Upholds Interim Compensation Based on Accused's Conduct
12 Jun 2026
Salman Khan Files Delhi HC Plea Against 'Kala Hiran'
12 Jun 2026
Writ Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief After Directing Litigant to Civil Forum: MP High Court
12 Jun 2026
Delayed Registration of Birth Certificate Without Statutory Compliance Is Not Proof of Minority: Sikkim High Court
12 Jun 2026
Personal Participation in Contract Work Creates Employer-Employee Tie Under Employees Compensation Act: Kerala High Court
12 Jun 2026
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection
12 Jun 2026
Insufficient Evidence to Prove Minority or Kidnapping: Gujarat High Court Acquits Two in Atrocity Act Case
29 Jan 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.