The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that a long-drawn live-in relationship between consenting adults carries a presumption of valid consent, and a subsequent refusal to marry cannot subject a person to prosecution for rape. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas delivered this landmark ruling while dismissing an acquittal appeal filed by a 40-year-old woman. The appellant challenged a trial court’s order acquitting the accused, Siddharth Sarangi, of charges under Sections 376(2)(k)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The appellant, who works as a Project Manager with the Municipal Corporation Bhilai, became acquainted with the accused in April 2019 after securing admission to the MBA programme at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), New Raipur. According to the complaints filed on December 20, 2022, the accused invited her to his residence on July 5, 2019, under the pretext of studying together with classmates. Upon reaching the house, she found no other students present. She alleged that the accused expressed a desire to establish a physical relationship and, despite her objections, assured her that he intended to marry her. Relying on this promise, she entered into a physical relationship.
Over the next two years, the parties lived together in a live-in relationship. The victim stated that the accused repeatedly avoided her requests for marriage. On August 29, 2021, the accused informed her that his parents opposed the union due to her age, her status as a divorcee, and her Christian faith. On November 28, 2021, when she visited his residence to request marriage, she alleged that he subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes.
The matter was later brought before the Women’s Commission, where a financial settlement of Rs. 30,00,000 was proposed. Although the accused handed over a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000, the payment was stopped because the victim did not execute the corresponding agreement. She subsequently returned the cheque to the Commission and filed an FIR on December 20, 2022. Following a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur acquitted the accused on June 24, 2025, finding the relationship to be consensual.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. She submitted that the prosecution had successfully established all essential ingredients of rape, proving that physical relations were built on multiple occasions under the false pretext of marriage, which the accused subsequently refused to honor.
In response, the counsel for the accused argued that the victim was a highly qualified lady who remained in a relationship for more than three years without disclosing it to anyone. He maintained that the physical relationship was entirely consensual and that a long-drawn live-in relationship raises a presumption of consent. He further emphasized that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be interfered with unless proven perverse or illegal. The respondent cited several Supreme Court precedents to support his contentions. Meanwhile, the Deputy Advocate General representing the State supported the appellant’s submissions, arguing that the acquittal was contrary to the facts on record.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court evaluated the evidence, pointing out that the victim, being 40 years old, was fully aware of the nature and consequences of entering into a physical relationship. The bench observed that the parties cohabited in a live-in relationship for nearly two years, indicating a long-drawn, consensual bond. The court also highlighted that the dispute had ultimately taken the form of a monetary disagreement following the failed settlement at the Women’s Commission.
Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support the allegations of unnatural sex. Dr. Vidya Shiv Kumar (PW/4) admitted in her cross-examination that the victim made no complaints of forceful or unnatural sex during her examination, and no corresponding physical injuries were detected.
To substantiate its legal reasoning, the High Court relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s ruling, the bench noted:
“In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical relations with each other but also of living together in a rented accommodation as a live-in couple. In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry.”
The High Court further cited the Supreme Court’s observations regarding modern relationships and the concept of consent:
“Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish… Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”
Applying these legal principles, the High Court determined that the long-term live-in relationship between the appellant and the accused gave rise to a presumption of valid consent.
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the trial court did not commit any infirmity, illegality, or perversity in its findings. Since the physical relationship was consensual, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of rape merely on the ground of his subsequent refusal to marry. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of acquittal and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Case Title: Xyz versus Siddharth Sarangi and Another
Case No.: ACQA No. 380 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Date: 29.06.2026
