The Bombay High Court has recently discharged a man who had been in a relationship with a woman for eight years, saying that the man could not be blamed solely because the woman with whom he had been in a relationship complained of rape after their relationship turned sour and did not result in marriage.
The bench of Justice Bharti Dangre was hearing a criminal revision application filed by the man against whom the FIR was filed in 2016 at Mumbai’s Versova police station.
When the case proceeded to trial, the man filed a discharge application, which was denied by the Dindoshi Sessions court.
“Two matured persons coming together and investing in a relationship, one cannot be blamed only because the other complained of the act at some point in time when the relationship did not go well and for whatever reason need not ultimately culminate in a marriage,” Justice Dangre stated after reviewing the facts of the case.
The woman who filed the complaint against the man had stated that she met him on the social media site Orkut and fell in love with him, and that they had been together for eight years.
The woman stated that even their families knew about each other. She claimed, however, that he had a sexual relationship with her under the guise of marriage but did not marry her.
However, the bench stated, “Admittedly, the victim was major when the relationship was established, both emotionally and physically. She was of adequate maturity to understand the consequences of her actions, and according to her own version, the relationship was consensual on some occasions, but sometimes it was forcible.”
“From the reading of the complaint, it can be seen that the applicant’s (accused) promise to marry the victim was not the only reason for permitting the applicant to have a sexual indulgence, as according to her own version, she was in love with the applicant,” Justice Dangre added.
“She was clearly aware of the effect of sexual indulgence, and the relationship being continued for a considerable length of time does not give rise to the conclusion that the sexual relationship was established on every occasion, only on the promise of marriage,” she added.
“It appears that they resided together for some point in time, and then they separated. The only bald statement in the complaint is that the applicant avoided performing the marriage,” she noted.
Furthermore, Justice Dangre reasoned that the victim “is of matured age to be conscious of the relationship, both physical and mental, and merely because the relationship had now turned sour, it cannot be inferred that the physical relationship established with her, on every occasion, was against her will and without her consent.”
