Rape | Section 376 IPC Not Prima Facie Attracted Where Prosecution Material Shows Subsisting Marital Relationship: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a criminal revision petition and quashed the charge of rape framed against a man, holding that Section 376 IPC was not prima facie attracted as the prosecution material itself showed that the parties were in a subsisting marital relationship at the relevant time.The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur reached this conclusion despite the...
The Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a criminal revision petition and quashed the charge of rape framed against a man, holding that Section 376 IPC was not prima facie attracted as the prosecution material itself showed that the parties were in a subsisting marital relationship at the relevant time.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur reached this conclusion despite the prosecutrix's allegation that the marriage had not been solemnised or registered in accordance with the requisite formalities.
The Court noted that the prosecution case itself proceeded on the assertion that the petitioner had entered into a marriage with her.
For context, the prosecutrix met the petitioner pursuant to an advertisement of her re-marriage after her divorce. It was alleged by the prosecutrix that on the selected date of their marriage in a temple, when the parties reached, petitioner said that due to family dispute, arrangements for marriage could not be made.
Thereafter they exchanged garlands and mangalsutra, and the petitioner further represented that the marriage would be solemnized and get registered as per law, later.
Thereafter, as per the prosecutrix, she was taken by the petitioner and the co-accused, and when she denied establishing sexual relations before solemnization of marriage, petitioner forced himself upon her. She was confined and subjected to repeated sexual assaults till she became pregnant when she was taken back to her parental home.
She gave birth to a boy and in the birth certificate, petitioner's name was mentioned as his father. Based on these allegations, FIR was registered against the petitioner that included the charge of rape, as well as deliberately spreading a life-threatening disease since he was HIV +.
The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging framing of charged against him.
After hearing the contention, the Court highlighted, the prosecutrix had maintained a consistent stance that the petitioner married her by exchanging garland and mangalsutra. However, later it was subsequently alleged that the marriage was not solemnized and registered as per requisite formalities based on petitioner's representations that the same shall happen later.
Further, the Court took note of petitioner being named as father of the child whom the prosecutrix gave birth. In this light, the Court observed,
“The allegations of the prosecutrix, even if taken at their face value for the purpose of considering the charge, therefore indicate that the alleged acts of sexual intercourse were committed during the period when the relationship between the parties was being asserted and treated as that of husband and wife. The prosecution material itself does not disclose that the petitioner was a stranger to the prosecutrix at the relevant time; rather, the entire prosecution case proceeds on the assertion that the petitioner had entered into a marriage with her.”
In this background, the Court held that since the marital relationship between the parties was subsisting at the relevant time, offence of rape was not prima facie attracted against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed partly, and the charges against the petitioner were quashed to the extent of the offence of rape.
Title: R v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329