Consensual Intimacy Between Mature Adults Does Not Constitute Rape Despite Subsequent Withdrawal of Consent

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on May 21, 2022, while the informant’s husband was away, the Appellant broke into the house at 2:00 A.M. and raped the informant

The Appellant fled when the husband returned at 3:00 A.M.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the medical evidence showed no signs of struggle or intercourse

The Appellant contended there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR

The Appellant contended that the relationship, if any, was consensual between two competent adults

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of house-trespass and non-consensual sexual intercourse beyond a reasonable doubt given the lack of medical evidence and delayed FIR

2. Whether the acts of the parties constituted an offence under Section 376 IPC or a consensual relationship between two adults

Section 376(1) (punishment for rape) and Section 450 of the IPC (house-trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment)

The legal maxim volenti non fit injuria (to one who consents, no injury is done) regarding adult autonomy

The fundamental maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty)

Section 90 of the IPC regarding the validity of consent

Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana (2024), which held that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove lack of consent in the absence of a fiduciary relationship

The Court observed that since both parties were discerning adults, they possessed the legal and mental capacity to provide autonomous consent

It found the prosecution's narrative improbable, noting that the informant raised no alarm during the alleged trespass into a bolted house

The Court scrutinized the medical report of P.W.5, which found no internal or external injuries or signs of recent intercourse, contradicting the claim of forcible assault

The court found the delay in filing the FIR, despite the husband’s immediate presence, cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations

The Court reasoned that the evidence pointed toward a consensual relationship that later turned sour, rather than a criminal act, noting that the criminal justice system should not be a tool for personal leverage in failed adult relationships

The Court set aside the Judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court, Jeypore. The Appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC, and the CRLA was allowed