In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, a case involving the alleged rape under the pretext of marriage has been adjudicated. This judgment holds implications for similar cases in the future, setting a precedent for justice. The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties, resulting in a verdict that upholds the principles of law and fairness.
Facts
- The applicant and the prosecutrix were acquainted since 2016 through their workplace.
- The applicant allegedly had physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage.
- On 23.11.2020, the applicant took the prosecutrix to an OYO hotel in Dwarka, Delhi, where he forced her into physical relations.
- In 2021, the prosecutrix discovered the applicant’s involvement with another woman, causing discord in their relationship.
- The applicant made efforts to reconcile but avoided marriage, citing religious differences and his mother’s requirement for the prosecutrix to convert to Islam.
- The applicant allegedly manipulated, threatened, and coerced the prosecutrix into sexual acts.
- On 13.01.2024, when the prosecutrix asked for marriage, the applicant demanded the prosecutrix to change her religion before agreeing to marry.
- The applicant allegedly threatened to harm the prosecutrix and her family if any complaint was filed against him.
- The applicant claims to have been falsely implicated due to the prosecutrix’s pressure to avoid repaying a total sum of ₹13,82,194 extended to her and her sister.
- The FIR was filed on 01.03.2024, accusing the applicant of rape under the pretext of marriage.
- It is stated that the applicant and prosecutrix were engaged in a romantic relationship since 2019.
Arguments
- The allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC are deemed baseless and false.
- The incident in question was reported to the office on 14.01.2024 by the applicant’s colleagues.
- There is a three-year delay in lodging the FIR from the alleged incident date of 23.11.2020.
- The applicant and the prosecutrix were in a mutually consenting relationship that ended in October 2023 at the prosecutrix’s request.
- During investigation, victim counseling and medical examinations revealed details of physical relations between the applicant and the complainant.
- Allegations of promise to marry and change of religion are refuted based on WhatsApp chats and financial transactions.
- The FIR was lodged following the applicant’s request for money repayment on 07.02.2024.
- The prosecutrix exhibited jealousy towards the applicant and colleagues after the breakup, leading to a drunken altercation on 13.01.2024.
- The learned APP for the State asserts that the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution’s case in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
- The investigation is still ongoing in this case.
- The applicant’s Counsel has presented and relied on What’sapp chats as evidence.
- The applicant and the prosecutrix have been acquainted since 2016 and had been in a romantic relationship since 2019.
Analysis
- The long period of the relationship indicates that the alleged physical relationship was not based on the pretext of marriage.
- Delay in filing the complaint raises doubts on the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
- Consent issue due to a promise of marriage cannot be determined at this stage and requires a trial.
- The FIR seems to be lodged as a result of a sour relationship, implying vendetta against the applicant.
- The applicant and the prosecutrix maintained communication even after the breakup.
- No specific date or time of the alleged incident has been provided by the prosecutrix.
- The prosecutrix was of legal age during the incident.
- Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought.
- The complainant knew about obstacles in marrying the accused but continued engaging in a sexual relationship.
- The victim and applicant were in a consensual physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time.
- The delayed FIR can lose the advantage of spontaneity and may introduce a colored or exaggerated version of events.
Decision
- The applicant shall not take unwarranted adjournment and attend the Trial Court proceedings on every date
- The applicant shall not leave the Country without the permission of the learned Trial Court
- The applicant shall not in any manner contact the complainant/victim or any of the witnesses
- The applicant shall, upon his release, furnish a proof of residence where he shall reside upon his release to the concerned IO/SHO, and in the event of change in address he shall intimate the same to the concerned IO/SHO.
Case Title: SUMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE & ANR. (2024:DHC:3862)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-1142/2024
