Rape is a violation of the victim’s body, mind and personal privacy, is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society. Rape reduces a woman to an animal because the core of her life is being shaken. A rape victim cannot be called an accomplice by any means. Rape leaves the victim’s life with a lasting scar. This turns extreme when it’s done with the consent of the prosecutrix on the misconception of facts, was mentioned by Justice T.Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court in the matter of Kotnaka Maheshwer versus State of Telangana [CRIMINAL PETITION No.7085 of 2020]
The following order was passed where the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, as the applicant and the defacto complainant maintained a consensual sexual relationship for over two years, that Section 376 IPC provisions were not drawn to the facts of the present case. Learned A counsel for the petitioner further submits that, since the relationship is consensual, the same will not fall within the competence of Section 420 IPC, although the promise of marriage does not apply since, from the beginning of the 2018 relationship, the petitioner was never intended to cheat or dishonestly induce a defacto complainant to enter into sexual relations. In recent times, the petitioner was unable to marry the complainant because of certain differences between the petitioner, his family and the de facto plaintiff. A learned counsel to the petitioner would further argue that since 12.11.2020 the petitioner has been in legal custody and is facing reputation loss in society. Therefore he prays for regular bail.
The learning Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner had sexual relations with the petitioner for some time on the promise of marrying the defacto-competitive, and now supports his promise to marry. The petitioner had been continuous physical use of the defacto complainant for over two years on the promise of the marriage of the defacto complainant and has now rejected the defacto complainant, and on 28.10.2020 the defacto complainant approached the respondent’s authority and lodged the present complaint. The learned prosecutor would further submit that eight witnesses had been examined and the investigation was underway today, and 164 Cr.P.C. Statements on the issue must be recorded by the authorities. Additional Public Prosecutor learned would also state that since the investigation is being conducted in advance, the petitioner may be granted any bail to alter the evidence and also influence the witnesses.
Having regard to the submissions made as above, and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh wherein it has been observed that-
“But for the false promise by the accused to marry the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix would not have given the consent to have the physical relationship. It was a clear case of cheating and deception.”
The court held after hearing both sides that the pleader, after being physically exploited for over two years by the petitioner, would only show that the petitioner had physical connections with the defacto complainant on a false promise of marriage, who had consented to have sexually abused under misunderstood fact and promise of marriage; The facts of this case clearly attracts attention to the principles set out in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anurag Soni. In view of this, this Court does not consider the petitioner to be granted a legitimate reason or reason for granting a regular bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.