Madras HC Acquits Man Of Rape And Cheating, Finding Adult Partner Consented To Sex And He Later Married Her

Rekha, an adult woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that Saravanan, from a different community, had sexual relations with her after promising to marry her, and that he later married her at Tiruppur.

She further alleged that Saravanan’s relatives assaulted her, removed her thali, and that Accused Nos. 2–7 later abused and threatened her and her family at a bus stop.

The Sessions Court convicted Saravanan under Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and convicted the other accused of various offences including rioting, intimidation, assault, and offences under the SC/ST Act and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

All accused appealed.

The Court considered Sections 417, 450, 376(2)(n), 147, 352 and 506(ii) IPC; Section 3(2)(v) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

On the facts before it, the Court treated Section 417 as requiring proof of deceptive intention and inducement, and held that an adult’s consensual sexual relationship, where the promise to marry was fulfilled, did not establish rape on the basis of consent obtained through fear or misconception.

It also applied the requirement that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) be committed in public view.

The Court found that Rekha was an adult, knew the parties belonged to different communities, and had continued the relationship despite opposition from her family.

It considered Saravanan’s subsequent marriage to her evidence that he had not entered the relationship with a deceptive intention; it therefore found Sections 417 and 376(2)(n) IPC unproved and, on the same account of consensual relations, rejected the charge under Section 450 IPC.

As to the alleged events during the return journey, the driver’s evidence did not support the prosecution account, and the police witness did not establish the presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 or the alleged thali-snatching; the Court consequently found the related charges unproved.

For the bus-stop incident, it found material inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts of the words used and held that the evidence did not establish the alleged caste-based utterances in public view.

Considering these deficiencies and other gaps in the investigation record, it held that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

It set aside the convictions and sentences against every appellant, discharged their bail bonds, and ordered that any fines paid be refunded.