The Chhattisgarh High Court, while affirming the acquittal of a person for the charges punishable under Section 376(2)(k)(n) and Section 377 of the IPC, reiterated that a long-drawn live-in relationship between two consenting, mature adults cannot be categorized as rape under a false pretext of marriage.

It was observed that the complainant, a highly qualified project manager, was fully aware of the nature and consequences of her relationship, which spanned over several years.

Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Court noted that a subsequent breakdown of a relationship or an unresolved financial dispute before a regulatory body does not invalidate the implied consent established by years of shared cohabitation, thereby dismissing the victim's acquittal appeal at the admission stage itself.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ravish Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another [2025] and said, "The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the victim and the accused were living in long drawn relationship as such, the physical relationship is consensual relationship. As such, the accused cannot be punished for commission of offence of rape is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravish Singh Rana (supra)"

Advocate Shriya Jaiswal appeared for the Appellant/Victim, Dy. Advocate General Sanjeev Pandey appeared for the State, and Advocate B.P. Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The appellant, a highly qualified lady working as a Project Manager, filed a criminal complaint alleging that the respondent-accused committed rape and unnatural offences against her. The appellant met the respondent while pursuing her postgraduate management studies. It was alleged that the respondent induced the appellant into a physical relationship under the false pretext and promise of marriage. 

The appellant further alleged that the respondent subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes at his residence and later blocked her communication. Before approaching the police, the appellant filed a complaint before the Women’s Commission, where a monetary settlement was proposed but failed as the payment terms were not mutually executed.

Subsequently, a First Information Report was registered, and the case was committed to the learned Trial Court. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent of all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the appellant preferred the instant acquittal appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellant / Victim and State, contended that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the ocular and documentary evidence available on record. It was submitted that the prosecution successfully established all the essential ingredients of the offences, proving that the respondent exploited the appellant on multiple occasions by giving a false promise of marriage. It was argued that the order of acquittal suffered from serious legal and factual infirmities and prayed for the admission of the appeal.

The Respondent opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of acquittal. It was argued that the appellant was an independent, mature, and highly educated adult who stayed in a live-in relationship with the respondent for a considerable period without disclosing it to her family, which squarely pointed towards absolute consent. It was further contended that an order of acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and unless the findings were demonstrated to be perverse or illegal, the appellate court ought not to interfere.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The High Court observed that the physical relationship between the parties spanned over several years and was entirely consensual. The Court took note of the appellant's admissions in her cross-examination, which revealed that she had resided with the respondent in a live-in relationship for nearly two years and had mutually agreed that marriage would take place only with the consent of both families.

The Court further observed that the medical evidence failed to substantiate any allegations of force or injuries relating to unnatural sexual intercourse. The testimony of the appellant's brother also indicated that the relationship developed out of a mutual love affair. It was noted that the dispute subsequently assumed the color of a monetary dispute before the Women's Commission when the settlement regarding a financial consideration fell through.

"From a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the victim, who was about 40 years of age at the relevant time, was fully aware of the nature and consequences of entering into a physical relationship with the accused. The evidence further indicates that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual. It has also come on record that the parties remained in a live-in relationship for nearly two years, thereby demonstrating a long drawn relationship between them", the Court said. 

Relying on the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that when two able-minded, financially independent adults voluntarily choose to cohabit in a long-drawn live-in relationship, a presumption of valid implied consent arises.

Finding no illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the impugned judgment, the Court affirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission.

Cause Title: XYZ v. Siddharth Sarangi and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:26186-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Shriya Jaiswal

Respondents: Dy. Advocate General Sanjeev Pandey, Advocates B.P. Sharma, Sanjeev Pandey

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: