Can a failed live-in relationship lead to a rape charge? What Allahabad High Court says

The Maharajganj court convicted and sentenced the appellant under all sections: seven years imprisonment besides fines under IPC sections 363 and 366, one year under section 323, 20 years under Pocso Act and life imprisonment under SC/ST Act.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra observed, “We find that this case is an example of increasing tendency of the youth living together without solemnisation of marriage under the influence of western ideas and the concept of live-in. After such relationships fail, FIR is lodged and the laws being in favour of women, the boys/men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was nowhere in existence.”

According to the prosecution’s case, a youth, belonging to an OBC community, allegedly enticed away a Dalit girl from his village in February 2021. The girl returned to her parents’ home in August of the same year. Her mother alleged that her daughter informed that the youth enticed her with the intention to marry, but he did not marry her and turned her out of his house. She could not approach the police earlier because of shame. While lodging the complaint, her age as per the Aadhar Card was January 1, 2003.

The youth, during examination before the local court, claimed the allegations against him were wrong and that the girl’s mother is a habitual litigant and extracts money by lodging false cases against different persons. The case against him was lodged with the intention to get compensation of Rs. 8,25,000 from the Social Welfare Department, the appellant claimed during his examination.

The division bench stated in the order, “We find that the trial court has not considered the age certificate of Prosecution witness -PW 2 (the victim) issued by CMO Maharajganj which proves her age to be about 20 years on 19.08.2021. She eloped from her house willingly on 22.02.2021, as per the statement of PW.-1 (mother) and also the prosecution case as per the FIR. In the F.I.R. P.W.-1 mentioned the age of P.W.-2 as 18-1/2 years, but it appears that later on legal advice she mentioned age of P.W.-2 as 17 years in her statement before the Court.”

“P.W.-2 was major and eloped from her house to the house of the appellant and from there she went through Public Transport to Gorakhpur and from there to Bangalore, She can not be said to have been forcibly abducted for the purpose of forcible marriage with the appellant. She lived with the appellant in a locality full of other houses for 6 months before returning to her place of residence with the appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections-363, 366 I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted as per the Law.”

“In case the victim was major the conviction of the appellant under Section-6 of the POCSO Act is also unjustified. The conviction under section-376 of I.P.C., is also not proper because the victim was major and had consenting relationship with appellant for six years,” the order stated.

The bench stated, “Her overall conduct of leaving her house on her own and living with the appellant for 6 months, having physical relationship with him, never making any call to her mother or anyone in her family during this period and making call to her mother only after the appellant left her at Shikarpur Crossing on 06.08.2021 proves that P.W.-2 entered into physical relationship with the appellant, became pregnant. Thereafter, for reasons best known to them, the appellant and P.W.-2 returned from Bangalore and both parted their ways.”

“The punishment under Section-3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act is not independent provision and is applicable only where the accused is punished with imprisonment of 10 years or more under the provision of IPC therefore the conviction of the appellant under Section-3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act is also not sustainable and is hereby set aside,” the court ordered.

The court noted, “conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC is also unwarranted since the role of pushing P.W.-2 has not been assigned to appellant but to his family members.”

The court in the judgment stated, “In view of the above consideration the Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial court can not be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail, he is directed to be set free, if not wanted in any other case.”