The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that in a long-term live-in relationship, individuals are presumed to have consented to engage in a physical relationship. This ruling, made on June 29, followed the dismissal of an appeal by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man charged with rape and unnatural sex. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay S Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas, asserted that a subsequent refusal by one partner to marry does not amount to rape.

Details of the Case

The case originated from a complaint by a 40-year-old project manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation. She alleged that she met the accused in 2019 while studying for an MBA at the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur. The complaint detailed that the accused allegedly promised to marry her, leading to a physical relationship where they lived together for approximately two years.

The woman claimed that once they had completed their MBA, the accused began to avoid discussions regarding marriage. Eventually, he informed her that his parents opposed the union due to her age, marital history, and religious background. The situation escalated on November 28, 2021, when the woman visited the accused to discuss marriage and alleged that he forced her into unnatural sexual intercourse against her will.

An FIR was subsequently lodged in December 2022, under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution had not sufficiently proved the charges. Following this, the woman appealed to the High Court against the acquittal decision.

High Court Examination of Evidence

During the appeal proceedings, the High Court evaluated various pieces of evidence, including the cross-examination of the complainant. She had reportedly expressed willingness to resolve the matter by settling for Rs 30 lakh before the Women’s Commission. The court additionally noted that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs 15 lakh as part of this settlement proposal, but the payment was stopped after the agreement failed.

Further scrutiny revealed that the woman admitted under cross-examination that she and the accused had agreed to marry only if their families approved. Additionally, her brother testified that she had informed him that their physical relationship was a result of being in a romantic relationship despite differing community backgrounds.

The court also considered medical testimony, indicating that during her examination, the woman did not report any forced sexual activity, nor were there any injuries consistent with such claims. This aspect of the case was deemed significant in assessing the credibility of the accusations.

Legal Implications and Conclusions

The bench concluded that in a long-term live-in relationship, there exists a presumption that both parties willingly embraced this arrangement, fully understanding its implications. The judges cautioned against a rigid interpretation by courts in such cases, especially with increasing financial independence among women.

After considering the trial court’s findings and the supportive evidence, the High Court upheld the decision, affirming that the relationship was consensual. In doing so, the court highlighted that the trial court’s conclusions were in line with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the woman’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share