Long-term live-in relationship between educated adults creates a presumption of consensual sex, negating charges of rape on promise of marriage.

The Appellant (a 40-year-old Project Manager and divorcee) filed an acquittal appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which cleared the Respondent/accused of charges under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 377 of the IPC

The Appellant alleged that the Respondent induced her into a physical relationship starting in July 2019 under a false promise of marriage

Their relationship lasted over two years, including a period of cohabitation

In late 2021, the Respondent refused marriage, citing family opposition and the Appellant’s health reports

The Appellant further alleged a specific instance of unnatural intercourse on 28.11.2021

Prior to the FIR, the parties attempted a monetary settlement before the Women’s Commission, which failed due to a dispute over the final amount

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the relationship to be consensual and the dispute to be financial in nature

1. Whether a long-drawn physical relationship between two consenting, educated adults can be characterized as rape if it ends in a refusal to marry

2. Whether the prosecution provided reliable medical or oral evidence to establish the charge of unnatural sexual intercourse under Section 377 of the IPC

The Court applied Section 376 (Rape) and Section 377 (Unnatural Offences) of the IPC

It heavily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, which establishes that if two able-minded adults reside together in a live-in relationship for a significant period, a presumption arises that they voluntarily chose the relationship aware of its consequences

The court also reaffirmed the principle that in acquittal appeals, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse, illegal, or unreasonable, as the presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal

The Court observed that the Appellant was a highly qualified adult (40 years old) who entered a "long-drawn" relationship lasting over two years

The Court noted that the initial physical encounter occurred in 2019, but the FIR was lodged only in 2022 after the breakdown of marriage talks and a failed monetary settlement

The Appellant’s admission during cross-examination regarding a live-in arrangement and negotiations for a ₹30 Lakh settlement indicated a consensual relationship rather than one based on a "misconception of fact" regarding marriage

Regarding Section 377, the Court highlighted that the medical testimony of Dr. Vidya Shiv Kumar (PW/4) found no injuries or evidence to support allegations of forceful or unnatural sex

Consequently, the Court found that the refusal to marry did not retroactively vitiate the voluntary consent given during the subsistence of the relationship

The High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, affirming the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court found no infirmity or perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment