In a groundbreaking ruling, the Orissa High Court has set a precedent regarding consensual relationships and the concept of rape.
The court has stated that if a physical relationship is based on a promise of marriage that later becomes unattainable due to various reasons, it cannot be classified as rape. This decision was made by Justice R K Pattanaik, who emphasized the need to differentiate between a genuine breach of promise and a false promise to marry.
Justice Pattanaik clarified that a breach of promise, made in good faith but ultimately unfulfilled, should not be equated with having sex under the false promise of marriage. In the former case, where a promise was made sincerely but circumstances prevented its fulfillment, an offense under Section 376 IPC (sexual assault) is not established. However, in the latter scenario, where a promise was deceitful from the outset, it can be considered rape because it is based on the assumption that the promise of marriage was fraudulent.
The court's ruling came during a recent judgment on a petition challenging the legality of criminal proceedings involving charges of cheating, sexual assault, and criminal force to outrage modesty. The case involved a relationship that had soured after seven years. Justice Pattanaik stressed the importance of distinguishing between relationships that began genuinely and those tainted by mistrust and dishonesty. The court contended that a sour relationship stemming from an initially genuine friendship should not automatically label the male partner as a rapist.
Upon examining the First Information Report (FIR) and material evidence, Justice Pattanaik concluded that there was no genuine promise from the accused party, and it could not be proven that the promise was intended to induce consent for maintaining a sexual relationship. As a result, the court ruled that the act was not conducted in bad faith, and an offense under Section 376 IPC could not be established.
According to the records of the case, the woman involved had entered into a relationship with the petitioner while still legally married. The promise made by the petitioner was eventually broken, despite his initial interest in marrying the woman. However, the court noted that the woman was not ready for marriage at that time due to personal reasons.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the awareness of the consequences exhibited by both parties. Considering their education and societal standing, the court concluded that they were well-informed individuals who engaged in a relationship that, over time, appeared to become one-sided. Consequently, the court determined that it would be unjust to accuse the petitioner of rape.
It is important to note that while the charge of rape was dismissed in this case, other allegations such as cheating remain open for further investigation. Justice Pattanaik clarified that the ruling exclusively pertained to the rape charge, and additional legal actions could proceed regarding other offenses.
Picture Source : https://stocksnap.io/photo/people-couple-88H5BM7G82
