A married woman with 2 children has consented sex with a doctor. Later she files a rape case. The poor Doctor is charged with Rape. Finally the supreme court saves the doctor clearly establishing why Consented sex is NOT RAPE
The Supreme Court has now provided relief to the man, quashing the FIR against him. He is no longer being held guilty of rape.
Here are the important points the Supreme Court made while giving the ruling:
1. Referring to several past cases, where a woman had filed a case of rape after the man did not marry her, the Supreme Court established that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. It placed emphasis on the need to establish whether the man actually wanted to marry the victim in such cases, or only said so to satisfy his lust, which would fall under cheating or deception.
2. The court emphasised on the distinction between a “breach of promise” and a “false promise”. Most of the cases that the court referred to amounted to a breach of promise. “If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape,” the judges said.
3. Placing emphasis on consent and willingness on part of the woman to engage in sex, the Supreme Court said that there may be cases where a woman agrees to physical intimacy “on account of her love and passion for the accused”, and not based on “the misconception created by accused”.
4. There is also a need to establish whether the accused man was unable to marry the woman due to circumstances beyond his control, “despite having every intention to”. In such a case, too, if there are sexual relations between the two, they would not amount to rape should the man fail to keep his promise of marriage.
5. The court said that by the complainant’s own admission in the present case, she was in love with the doctor, and was living with him of her own volition. The judges noted that they belonged to different communities and that Dr Sonar had already said to the woman that it would take a month to register their marriage if they were to marry. “The complainant further states that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that she needed a companion as she was a widow,” it observed.
6. Establishing that the relationship was voluntary and consensual, the court observed that it was not as though the man had forcibly raped her. Having sexual relations was a “conscious decision” on her part, after “application of mind to the things that happened,” the order states. “It is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted […],” it adds. Asserting that tacit consent was given by the woman, the court ruled that this consent was not a result of a misconception (like that of marriage) created in her mind.
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist