'Sexual Offences' Under IPC Are Women-Centric To Protect Dignity & Honour But Male Partner Not Always At Fault: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a man accused of rape, emphasizing that while laws on sexual offences are rightly women-centric, it does not mean that the male partner is always at fault. A Division Bench comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Nand Prabha Shukla noted that the burden of proof in such cases lies with both the complainant and the accused.The bench stated, “No doubt, chapter XVI “Sexual Offences”, is a womensentic enactment to protect the dignity and honour of a lady and girl and rightly so, but while assessing the circumstances, it is not the only and every time the male partner is at wrong, the burden is upon both of them. It is unswallowable proposition that a weaker sex is being used by the male partner for five good years and she keep on permitting him on so called false pretext of marriage.”“Both of them are major and they understand the gravity of the situation and the far reaching repercussion of pre-marital sex and still they maintained this relationship at different places, different cities, which clearly indicates that this acquisitions that she was subjected to sexual harassment and rape cannot be accepted and learned Trial Judge rightly so have given a benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent and relieved from the major charges pasted against accused-respondent.” the bench added.The ruling stemmed from an appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The accused was also charged under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.In 2019, the victim lodged a police complaint, alleging that the accused had established a sexual relationship with her under the false promise of marriage, but later refused to marry her. She also claimed that he had made derogatory remarks about her caste.The accused was chargesheeted in 2020. Earlier this year, the trial court acquitted him of the rape charge, convicting him only under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Dissatisfied with the trial court's verdict, the victim filed an appeal.In response, the accused informed the Court that the relationship was consensual and that he had declined to marry upon discovering that she was not of the 'Yadav' caste as she had claimed.Upon reviewing the contentions and the evidence, the Court noted that the complainant had married a man in 2010 but began living separately from him after two years.Additionally, the Court observed that the complainant denied her previous marriage and claimed ignorance about her name appearing in the family register presented in the trial court.The Court observed, “On this score, the learned Trial Court has rightly given a finding that under circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the accused-respondent have trapped her in the false pretext of marriage. Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument, that some promise was extended to her but after the emergence of this new fact, that victim is already married to Om Prakash and that marriage still subsist, then any amount of promise to marry would automatically gets evaporated.”Regarding the applicability of the SC/ST Act in this case, the Court emphasized that the caste of the parties involved plays a crucial role in establishing the permanence of any relationship in society.The Court noted that the complainant was unable to substantiate her claim regarding her caste.The Court stated, “Therefore, it can be easily inferred that a lady who is already married and without dissolution of her earlier marriage and concealing her caste has maintained the physical relationship for good 5 years without any objection and hesitation and both of them have visited numbers of hotel, lodges at Allahabad and Lucknow and enjoyed the company of each other. It is difficult to adjudicate who is befooling whom?”Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused.Case Title: Informant/Victim vs State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 394Click here to read order

'Sexual Offences' Under IPC Are Women-Centric To Protect Dignity & Honour But Male Partner Not Always At Fault: Allahabad High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags