The Kerala High Court has acquired a person whom a trial court docket convicted of raping his lover. The High Court held that intercourse on promise to marry will quantity to rape provided that the accused has violated the decisional autonomy of the sufferer.
Allowing an enchantment filed by the 35-year-old man, Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath held that this was not a case of forcible sexual act as towards her will however a sexual act on a promise to marry the place the consent is implicit.
Setting apart the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court docket, the High Court, in its March 30 order, stated the sufferer and the accused had been in a relationship for greater than 10 years and the sexual act solely occurred simply earlier than the preparation for the wedding was made. He had sexual activity with the sufferer on three events.
️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to entry the perfect Election reporting and evaluation ️
“The prosecution evidence itself would show that there was resistance from the parents of the accused to accept the marriage without dowry. That would show that the sexual act committed by the accused was with real intention to marry the victim and he could not hold on to his promise due to resistance from his family,” the court docket stated.
It stated within the absence of another proof on the facet of the prosecution, the conduct of the accused can solely be handled as a breach of promise.
“In light of the discussions, we are of the view that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the sexual act was on a false promise to marry or the consent was obtained by non-disclosure of material facts ,” the court docket stated.
Noting that the prosecutrix had not said something in proof to represent the foundational information for attracting the presumption beneath Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, the High Court stated, “Merely for the reason that the accused contracted another marriage immediately after the sexual act with the victim cannot give rise to the presumption of lack of consent. We cannot ignore the social circumstances of the parties.”
The court docket stated the dearth of consent must be said by the prosecutrix.
The trial court docket had sentenced the person to endure imprisonment for all times and to pay a high-quality of Rs 50,000.
The court docket was listening to an enchantment moved by a person towards the order of a trial court docket which had convicted him of offense beneath Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC and to endure imprisonment for all times and to pay a high-quality of Rs 50,000.
,
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
