The Kerala High Court quashed multiple rape cases against a man, ruling that the sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant was consensual and not based on any misconception of fact.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while allowing three criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the accused Sujith, observed: “On no stretch of imagination the prosecution case would reveal that the sexual intercourse is the outcome of misconception of fact, in any manner.”
Background:
The case stems from an FIR filed in 2017 by a woman alleging that Sujith, who was the driver of a tempo van used by her family for a tour to Kodaikanal in April 2005, had raped her multiple times between 2005 and 2015. The complainant alleged that Sujith first raped her in July 2005 in the tempo van, then again in November 2011 at a lodge in Munnar, and in October 2015 at another location. She claimed the sexual acts were based on false promises of marriage.
Legal Issues:
The key legal issue was whether the sexual relationship between Sujith and the complainant constituted rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, particularly focusing on whether consent was obtained under misconception of fact.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Badharudeen, after analyzing several Supreme Court judgments on the issue of consent in rape cases, concluded that this was a case of consensual relationship rather than rape. The court noted:
“It is discernible from the facts of the case that the defacto complainant initially had sexual intercourse with the accused during 2005 voluntarily with her consent and continued the same during 2011 and 2015 and on no stretch of imagination the prosecution case would reveal that the sexual intercourse is the outcome of misconception of fact, in any manner.”
The court quashed the proceedings in S.C.No.956/2018 and S.C.No.955/2018 pending before the Special Court for trial of offences against women and children in Ernakulam, as well as C.P.No.37/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur.
Important Observations:
The court emphasized that while a false promise of marriage without any intention to marry can vitiate consent, each case must be examined based on its specific facts. Justice Badharudeen noted:
“If the materials would show that the relationship is purely consensual without an element of misconception of fact, the same is not rape.”
The court also pointed out the significant delay in filing the complaint, stating that no complaint was lodged till 2017 regarding the first alleged incident in 2005.
Also Read
Case Details:
Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 9538, 9546 and 9561 of 2023
Petitioner/Accused: Sujith
Respondent: State of Kerala
Petitioner’s Lawyers: C.P. Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N. Nath
Public Prosecutor: Sri Renjit George
