06 March 2024 FIR >> Criminal Law   |   Rape >> Criminal Law  

Love, betrayal, and accusations of rape. These dramatic elements often form the backdrop of high-profile court cases. But what happens when the truth becomes clouded by inconsistencies? A recent case involving a married woman's rape accusation against a man has sparked debate about consent and the complexities of relationships.

Facts:

• The Complainant, a married woman with a daughter, alleges the appellant raped her on the false promise of marriage.
• The alleged rape occurred in 2017 and 2020, while the complainant claims she divorced her husband in 2018.
• The Complainant and appellant reportedly lived in the same house with the complainant's parents and daughter.
• The Complainant claims they had a temple marriage in January 2019.
• Evidence shows the appellant financially supported the complainant.
• The Complainant filed the FIR in December 2020.
• Discrepancies exist between the complainant's FIR statement and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (recorded by a magistrate). The FIR claims no promise of marriage until 2019, while the Section 164 statement suggests a promise in 2018.
• Evidence shows the Complainant's divorce decree was finalized in January 2021, not 2018 as she initially claimed.

Conclusion:

• The Court found inconsistencies in the Complainant's statements regarding the timing of the alleged rape and her divorce.
• The evidence suggests a long-standing, possibly consensual relationship between the complainant and the appellant.
• Considering the complainant's marital status and the nature of the relationship, the Court concluded the alleged rape did not occur under a misconception of marriage. The court further allowed the Appeal and quashed the FIR.