The Allahabad High Court on June 13 acquitted a man accused of rape under the false promise of marriage stating that the law on sexual offences is rightly women-centric but that does not mean the male partner is always wrong.
The court noted that while sexual offence laws are designed to protect women, it doesn't automatically imply guilt on the part of the man.
The judgement was delivered by a division bench consisting of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla.
They emphasized that the responsibility of proof in such cases is shared by both the complainant and the accused.
The court stated, "While the law rightly aims to safeguard the dignity and honor of women, it doesn't mean that the man is always at fault. The responsibility lies with both parties."
The court also observed, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic (sic) enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them.”
Case Details:
In 2019, the complainant filed a police report in Prayagraj, alleging that the accused had initiated a sexual relationship with her under the promise of marriage, but later reneged on his promise. She also accused him of making derogatory remarks about her caste.
In addition to the rape charges, the accused was indicted under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Following an investigation, the accused was formally charged in 2020. On February 8, 2024, the trial court in Prayagraj acquitted the accused of rape but convicted him under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant then appealed to the high court.
'Relationship was Consensual':
In his defense, the accused claimed that their relationship was consensual and he had declined to marry the woman after discovering that she did not belong to the 'Yadav' caste as she had claimed.
Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court discovered that the complainant had been married in 2010 but had been living separately since 2012. It also came to light that the complainant had concealed her marital status.
The high court upheld the trial court's acquittal, stating, "It can be inferred that a woman who is already married and has concealed her caste has maintained a physical relationship for five years without any objection.
Both parties have visited numerous hotels and lodges in Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed each other's company. It's challenging to determine who is deceiving whom."
The court noted that the complainant was unable to substantiate her claim regarding her caste. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the trial court was correct in acquitting the accused, as the complainant's allegations of sexual harassment and rape were not credible.
