E-Paper
‘Relationship consensual’: Chandigarh court acquits youth in rape case
The court called the relationship ‘consensual’ and said there was no evidence to prove that the woman was raped by the accused on the pretext of marriage. The available facts and circumstances make it clear that the relationship between the two parties was consensual and cordial, the court remarked.
A special court dealing with POCSO and rape cases headed by additional district and sessions judge Yashika acquitted a youth of rape charges on Tuesday.
The court called the relationship ‘consensual’ and said there was no evidence to prove that the woman was raped by the accused on the pretext of marriage. The available facts and circumstances make it clear that the relationship between the two parties was consensual and cordial, the court remarked.
According to the prosecution, the complainant had registered a case against the youth. She had lodged a complaint with the police on December 29, 2022, stating that Pradeep Yadav was in a relationship with her for the past one and a half years.
She had alleged that Pradeep had physical relations with her by promising to marry her. She stated that Pradeep’s family was also aware of their relationship and Pradeep had told them that he would marry her only. The victim told that on August 4, 2022, when she went to Pradeep’s house to talk about marriage, his mother and sister told her about Pradeep’s engagement with some other girl and misbehaved with her. The girl had also alleged that on June 17, 2021, Pradeep took her to a hotel in Dariya for the first time. Apart from this, he also used to take her to a house in South City, Zirakpur.
While passing the order, the court stated, “It is very difficult to assume that the prosecutrix who is otherwise a mature person was unable to discover the deceitful behaviour of accused who continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long period on the promise of marriage. Any such mendacious act of the accused would have been exposed sooner without having to wait for such a long time.
The inference one can drawn under the circumstances is that there was no such false promise made to the prosecutrix by the accused of marriage by continuing to have physical relationship so as to bring this act within the province of Section 376 IPC and therefore, there was no vitiation of consent under misconception of fact. Even, if the prosecution’s case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the prosecutrix engaged in a sexual relationship with the accused solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the accused. The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature.”
