The Kerala High Court has provided an assessment that should be considered when sex on marriage promises can amount to rape.
Putting aside the belief of a man for violations of rape on false promises of marriage, the court clarified only because the defendant signed another marriage immediately after sexual acts with the victim, it could not cause the assumption of the lack of approval.
“Only for the reason that the defendant contracted another marriage immediately after sexual action with the victim could not raise the assumption of the lack of agreement”
Furthermore, the High Court has argued that the non-disclosure of material facts by the defendant who influenced the agreement would violate the sexual autonomy of a woman. If the marriage is uncertain, the defendant will definitely reveal the same thing to the woman.
After a comprehensive analysis of relevant laws, the bench of the justice division. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappgat observed that the legal position on this problem was clear.
“The material facts are known by the defendant if they do not share with women during sexual acts, it will certainly violate their rights to protect the autonomy of his decision-making. Part 375 IPC clearly imagined violations of sexual decision autonomy as a violation.”
“If he is not sure about the marriage, he will definitely reveal that fact to the woman 90 IPC “, the court was held.
The court deals with an appeal that challenges the judgment of punishing applicants for violations under the section of 376 IPC (rape). The trial court has sentenced him to serve a life sentence. The prosecution case is that the victim is physically exploited by the applicant.
The applicant and victim are brothers and in a relationship for the past 10 years. It was said that the applicant had sexual relations with the victim on three occasions against his will. Even though there was preparation for their wedding later, because there was a resistance from his parents, he married another woman.
However, the victim then overthrew that it was not a case of forced sexual acts against his will but sexual acts for the promise to get married where the agreement was implicit and this was recorded by the session court as well.
The High Court submitted with the following questions:
(i) In what circumstances make love with the promise to get married into rape?
(ii) Does the law postulate the determination of the crime of sexual action in the context of ‘approval’ on the premise cannot be contested as sexual autonomy?
(iii) Does the law reflect on categorizing sexual acts based on approval only on the woman’s understanding?
The bench commented that the approval of a woman with a promise to get married was ‘puzzle for prosecution to prove’ while showing that the provisions of violating rape in the IPC were not neutral gender.
“A woman, on a false promise to marry and has sexual relations with a man, with the agreement from the latter gained in such a false promise, cannot be punished for rape. However, a man on a false promise to marry a woman and has sexual relations with women It will lead to cases of rape prosecution. Therefore, the law, therefore, creates a fictitious assumption that the man is always in a position to dominate the wishes. “
Therefore, it is emphasized that the understanding of approval must be related to dominant and subordinated relationships in sexual acts.
Therefore, in the absence of other evidence on the side of the prosecution, the defendant’s behavior can only be treated as a violation of an appointment.
“We cannot ignore the social conditions of the parties. The lack of approval must be stated by Prosecutrix. The victim and the defendant are in love for more than ten years. Sexual actions only occur before preparation for the preparation of the marriage was made. Proof of prosecution itself will show that there will be The resistance of the parents accused of receiving marriage without dowry. It will show that sexual acts carried out by the defendant with real intentions to marry victims and he can. Do not hold on to his promise because of his family’s resistance.
In the absence of other evidence on the side of the prosecution, the defendant’s behavior can only be treated as an appointment violation. Given the discussion, we have the view that the defendant has the right to the benefits of doubts because the prosecution has failed to prove sexual acts on false promises to get married or approval obtained with non-disclosure of material facts “.
Thus, the appeal is permitted, thus putting aside the assessment of the confidence and the sentence that is revealed. The applicant is appropriate to be released and directed to be released and arranged in Liberty immediately if he is not needed.
Case title: Ramachandran @ chandran v. State of Kerala & amp; ANR
