Length of relationship considerable factor in rape case over false promise to marry: Karnataka HC

New Delhi: In a recent case the Karnataka High Court held that the length of relationship is a considerable factor in a rape case that lodged over false promise to marry. The HC quashed the charges of rape levelled against a youth who had been booked on rape charges wherein the complainant alleged that they had sexual relationship for five years.

In the said case, it was alleged by the complainant girl that she and the (accused) boy became acquaintances long ago. Later, they developed a relationship and it later turned into sexual relationship.

It was alleged that the complainant and the accused had sexual relationship and it was on the pretext of marriage. However, it was later breached. Hence, the consent of the complainant was obtained by inducement on false promise of marriage, alleged the petitioner. Accordingly a case was registered under sections 376 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Police registered the case, investigated and filed the chargesheet in the Court. The petitioner submitted that he and the complainant were in love, wanted to get married, but the marriage could not be executed due to caste issue. And she then wanted to level the sexual relationship for five years as rape charges.

However, to this allegation the Karnataka High Court held that “It would not amount to rape by any stretch of imagination a as it was consensual.”

The Court held that “The consent in the case at hand is not once, twice or thrice; not for days or months; but for several years, five years precisely, as is narrated in the complaint as the two were in love. Therefore, for five long years, it cannot be said that the consent of a woman has been taken for having such instances, all along against her will. It is the length of the relationship and the acts in such a period of such relationship between the two that takes away the rigor of ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”

Source: Live Law