Priyanshu
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has stated that consensual sexual activity between two adults in a long-term relationship cannot be considered rape, even if the relationship ends or love diminishes over time. The court’s decision came in a case where a man was accused of rape by his former partner after their five-year relationship ended.
Case Details
The case involved a couple who had been in a consensual relationship for five years. The relationship ended due to differences, after which the woman filed a complaint alleging that the man had engaged in sexual activity with her under the false promise of marriage. The police charged the man with rape, cheating, assault, and criminal intimidation under Sections 375, 420, 351 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Court’s Decision
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, meticulously examined the evidence, including the woman’s complaint, statements, and the police charge sheet. The court observed that the couple had been in a consensual relationship for a substantial period and that the sexual acts were not coerced. The court emphasized that the woman’s consent was not obtained through force or misrepresentation.
Justice Nagaprasanna, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh clarified the distinction between a false promise of marriage and a genuine promise that is not fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances. The court held that in this case, the man’s actions did not constitute rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC.
Key Legal Principles
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling underscores several crucial legal principles:
- Consensual Relationships: Consensual sexual activity within a relationship, even if it does not lead to marriage, cannot be automatically categorized as rape.
- Withering Love: The mere fact that love or affection fades over time does not invalidate the consensual nature of past sexual acts.
- False Promise vs. Breach of Promise: The court distinguished between a false promise of marriage made with deceptive intent and a genuine promise that is not fulfilled due to circumstances. Only a false promise with deceptive intent can vitiate consent.
Implications
This ruling has significant implications for legal interpretations of consent and rape in India. It reinforces the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and situations involving coercion or deception. The judgment also highlights the need for careful examination of evidence and circumstances in such cases.
Public Discourse
The Karnataka High Court’s decision has sparked public discourse on the complexities of consent, particularly in intimate relationships. While some legal experts and activists have welcomed the ruling as a step towards protecting consensual relationships, others have raised concerns about the potential misuse of this precedent to shield perpetrators in cases of genuine deception.
Name of the case- Mallikarjun Desai Goudar v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case Number- Criminal petition no.4761 of 2022
Bench- Justice M Nagaprasanna