The Supreme Court acquitted a man of criminal charges who allegedly abondoned a woman belonging to SC-ST community after sharing a live-in-relationship with her.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh observed that the woman cannot claim criminality on behalf of the boyfriend under stautes for prevention of caste oppression in circumstance of romantic relationship.

The appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 493 IPC along with Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was challenged before the High Court which allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction under Sections 376 and 493 IPC, while confirming the one imposed by the trial Court under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and thus, imposed a sentence of six months.

In the present appeal, he had contended that the reasons assigned by the High Court in rendering an order of acquittal against the offences charged under Sections 376 and 493 IPC, ought to have been extended to the remaining one under the SC/ST Act as well. His Counsel submitted that it is not as if the appellant was in a position to dominate the will of the prosecutrix and, therefore, there is no question of using that position to exploit her sexually. 

The fact that the agreement was registered between the parties itself would indicate that the parties fell apart due to a misunderstanding between them and, therefore, it is a mere case of two individuals leading separate lives. In any case, there is no criminality which could be attributed to the appellant for merely leaving the prosecutrix, he further submitted.

State Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the appellant left the relationship with the prosecutrix only for the reason that she belongs to the depressed community and therefore Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act does get attracted.

The Court noted that the appellant and respondent infact lived together for quiet some time and the factum of registration of Ext. P-1, being the marriage agreement, also indicates the agreed terms between the parties.

It pointed that there is no claim of the agreement being forced and even the High Court observed that it was done voluntarily.

Noting that Section 3(1)(xii) deals with a case of one party being in a dominant position, exerting such dominance on the will of a woman and thereafter, using it to exploit her sexually, the Court stated that the said provision do not get attracted.There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was in a position to dominate the will of the prosecutrix and thereafter used it to exploit her sexually, it added.

Citing Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 Latest Caselaw 107 SC, the appeal was allowed and set aside the impugned High Court.

Case Title: SHAJAN vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594_OF 2022 (@ SLP (CRL.) NO. 7700 OF 2018)

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh

Read Judgement Here:

Picture Source :