A man accused of raping his sister-in-law on the false promise of marriage has been acquitted by a Delhi court, which said that the woman had "consented" to sexual intercourse with him.
The court also said that "it is very difficult to believe that such a lady in her late 20s and already married would get deceived by any kind of promise or assurance by the accused, who was none other than her own brother-in-law".
"There is not an iota of evidence on record to suggest that the accused had deceived the prosecutrix by promising to marry her before taking her consent for sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was about 29 years of age, already married and also having a son at that time when she started sexual liaison with the accused. The accused was unmarried at that time...
"It is a clear case of the prosecutrix having engaged in extra martial relations with accused and depicts promiscuity on her part, for which no criminal liability can be fastened upon accused," Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said.
The man, a native of Rajasthan, was arrested by the police after his sister-in-law lodged a case that she was raped by the accused on several occasions since January 2012.
In her complaint, she had alleged that the accused knew there was no co-habitation with her husband for a long period, so the man took advantage of the situation and had committed sexual intercourse with her on the assurance that he would marry her after she obtains divorce from her husband.
She had also said that the accused had even performed symbolic marriage with her by applying vermilion and every time when he had sexual intercourse with her, he used to make promise that he would marry her.
However, the court noted that "she (woman) had consented to sexual intercourse with the accused after the accused told her that having physical relations is a facet of love making and she got carried away by his talks and emotions...
"It is evident that she did not offer any resistance and did not try to leave that place. It was for the prosecutrix in such circumstances to weigh pros and cons of the intended act and to decide whether or not she should submit her body to the accused. After all she was not the minor or an immature girl. She was about 29 years of age, already married and also having a son".
The court further said that "it was not a forcible act on the part of the accused".