If the accused did not make a promise with the sole intention of seducing to commit sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 2nd April 2020

Govind Singh Rajput vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another

Facts:

The second respondent filed a written complaint with the police that she was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner (Audit) for Customs and Central Excise after the death of her husband in 2013. The applicant has also been appointed Superintendent in the same department as a result of which the applicant has become acquainted with the respondent and has frequently begun to enter the respondent’s house to establish a good relationship with the respondent and her family. It was also alleged that the applicant went to the respondent’s house and rubbed vermilion on her forehead, promising that, as God is his witness, he will perform all the duties of her husband.

In February 2015, respondent No. 2 went to the applicant’s home where she recognized that the applicant was married and had already two children. Accordingly the applicant told respondent No. 2 that he would retain her as his second wife. It is further alleged that the complainant has married respondent No.2. He then began going to the respondent’s house no.2, where they had sexual intercourse, and then they stayed at the hotel in Indore and Bhopal, where they had a physical relationship.

Respondent No.2 has moved from the government Building quarters where the applicant lived. Later, by intimidating her and her son and saying derogatory things about respondent No. 2, the applicant distanced himself from the respondent No.2.   On the claim referred to above, FIR has been reported by the police against the applicant and a complaint has been filed after completion of the investigation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The applicant submitted that there would be no offence under section 376 of IPC as it would be clear that she was a consenting party. Although the applicant had been aware of the fact that the applicant was already married and had children out of the wedlock, even after she had sexual intercourse with him and proceeded for a considerable period to have intercourse with the applicant. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the consent of the Respondent was obtained by the applicant either by mis-representation or misconception of the fact and prayed for quashing of FIR.

It was argued that the consent of the plaintiff to sexual intercourse is due to the petitioner’s false promise of marriage. Consequently, the consent was vitiated and the applicant’s sexual contact was subject to rape. The reasons provided by the present applicant for the quashing of the FIR are challenged and cannot be accepted at this point because of facts based on the evidence of the parties and prayed for the rejection of the petition.

Courts Observation and Decision:

 The Court noticed that the applicant was married and, even then, she wanted to stay with the applicant and she understood what immoral acts she had accepted, as well as the extent and implications of sexual activities that she had agreed to. She was expected to consider the meaning and consequences. She was able to choose between resistance and acceptance and was deliberately chosen to use later choices. It cannot therefore be assumed that her consent was gained by misinterpretation of facts or errors. The petition filed by the accused under section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed.