In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that consent obtained under threat or misconception cannot be treated as valid consent in cases of sexual assault. The court made this observation while dismissing an application seeking the quashing of a charge sheet against the accused, who was charged under Sections 376, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, provides crucial insights into the judicial interpretation of consent in the context of sexual offences.
Case Background:
The case stems from an FIR filed on November 15, 2018, by a woman at the Women Police Station, Agra. The FIR was registered under multiple sections, including 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
The complainant alleged that the accused, along with his family members, had forced her into a non-consensual sexual relationship using threats and false promises. The complainant, a highly educated woman, claimed that the accused had deceived and coerced her into a relationship, which he later exploited for sexual purposes and blackmail.
Detailed Allegations:
According to the FIR, the accused and the complainant were former classmates and had known each other for several years. In 2016, the accused’s family proposed marriage, which the complainant rejected. Despite this, the complainant alleged that the accused continued to maintain contact and later lured her to his house under the pretense of his mother’s illness.
Once at his house, the accused allegedly drugged her with tea, rendering her unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself naked and discovered that nude photographs had been taken of her. The accused and his family allegedly used these photographs to blackmail her into a continued sexual relationship, threatening to expose the pictures if she refused.
The complainant further stated that the accused exploited her emotionally and financially, and when she demanded marriage, he refused, stating that his actions were in retaliation for the earlier rejection of his marriage proposal.
Court’s Examination of Consent and Legal Issues:
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the relationship between the accused and the complainant was consensual, and if not, whether the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC was applicable. The court examined the definition of consent under Section 375 IPC and considered whether the complainant’s consent was given under duress, fear, or misconception, making it legally invalid.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta referred to Section 90 of the IPC, which states:
“A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.”
The court emphasized that consent must be voluntary and should involve active and reasoned deliberation. Consent obtained through coercion, threats, or deceit does not meet the criteria set by law.
Arguments by the Parties:
– Counsel for the Accused: Advocate Gaurav Kakkar, representing the accused, argued that the relationship between his client and the complainant was consensual and had continued for an extended period. He cited judgments from the Supreme Court, such as Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, to argue that no offence of rape was made out since the relationship was voluntary and long-standing.
– Counsel for the State: The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), Rajesh Kumar, countered that the initial relationship was established under deceit and coercion, rendering any consent given by the complainant invalid. He argued that the subsequent relationship continued under the threat perception created by the accused and his family, making it a non-consensual relationship by law.
Key Observations and Decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, in its analysis, observed that although there was a prolonged relationship between the complainant and the accused, the initial act of establishing a sexual relationship was done without the complainant’s free consent. The court stated:
“A man establishes a sexual relationship with a woman against her will and without her consent is said to have committed rape on the woman. However, if a man establishes a sexual relationship with a woman with her consent, then such sexual activity would not amount to rape. However, if such consent was given by the woman under fear or misconception, such sexual activity with such tainted consent would amount to rape.”
Justice Gupta highlighted that the complainant’s consent was obtained through fear and blackmail, which invalidated it. He further stated that any subsequent consent given under the pretext of marriage or continued threat could not be considered valid. The court dismissed the relevance of the judgments cited by the accused, stating that they did not apply in cases where the initial act was committed against the will of the woman.
The court concluded that the accused had committed an offence under Section 376 IPC. The application to quash the charge sheet was dismissed, with Justice Gupta noting:
“The initial relationship was established by the accused with an element of cheating, threat, etc., against the will of the complainant, prima facie an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is made out against the accused.”
The court also clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by its observations and should proceed according to law. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on the validity of consent, particularly in cases involving sexual assault allegations.
Parties and Representation:
– Accused: Represented by Advocate Gaurav Kakkar
– State of Uttar Pradesh: Represented by Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) Rajesh Kumar
