The Karnataka High Court observed that the consensual acts between the accused and the victim for sexual relationship is not a licence to a man to assault the lady.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Petition filed by the accused Circle Inspector, challenging the proceedings pending against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “I deem it appropriate to hold that consensual acts between the accused and the victim for having sexual relationship, can never become a licence to the man to assault the lady. The case at hand projects gross misogynist brutality upon the complainant.”

Advocate P. Prasanna Kumar appeared for the Petitioner while High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Harish Ganapathi and Advocate M. Rekha appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner-accused was working as a Circle Inspector in the Police Department and the Complainant was the wife of a Constable. As per the prosecution case, the Complainant had come in contact with the accused in 2017 when she had been to the Police Station with other public in relation some other case. The intimacy between the two turned into physical as well. In this regard, a Complaint was registered by the Complainant in 2021 before the Women’s Police Station alleging physical and sexual harassment meted out to her by the accused. It was alleged that the accused started threatening her to withdraw the case otherwise he would kill her children.

It was then another Complaint was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. However, the Complaints were not taken forward as the Complainant did not choose to pursue the same further. Thereafter, it was alleged that one day, the Complainant was picked up by the accused, driven into a hotel and there he forcibly had sex with her and assaulted her badly and then dropped her at the bus stop. The Complainant went to the hospital for the treatment of injuries and pursuantly, registered the crime. Filing of the chargesheet led to the accused move to the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “If the narration in the complaint or the averments in the statement of objections or even the summary of charge sheet is taken note of, the complainant visits the petitioner for the first time in the year 2017 in connection with the affairs of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedhike of Shivamogga District of which the complainant was the President. It is from the said meeting blossoms friendship, and friendship into relationship.”

The Court added that the relationship even physical between the Complainant and the Petitioner would clearly indicate that they were at times peaceful and they were at times marred with violent acts on the part of the Petitioner.

“But, insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, the acts between the complainant and the petitioner were not out of fraud, force or deceit as is alleged. They were all consensual acts. … such consensual acts between the petitioner and the complainant, for four long years, cannot be termed as offence of repeated rape, though the projection, is that consent was obtained by fraud, dominance or otherwise”, it further noted.

Moreover, the Court said that the consent cannot be obtained by such methods for four long years and therefore, the acts do not amount to rape. It added that the offence of repeated rape laid against the Petitioner cannot be sustained and therefore, the said offence requires to be obliterated.

“The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. What has happened on 11-11-2021 which forms the fulcrum of the lis, as observed hereinabove and the statements recorded thereon would clearly indicate violent behaviour of the petitioner upon the complainant, be it for offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC or assault as obtaining under the provisions as noted hereinabove”, it also observed.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the consensual acts between the two cannot become a rape but the other offences are all to be sustained, as any amount of consensus cannot handover a man with, the licence to assault a woman.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Petition, obliterated the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and sustained the other alleged offences.

Cause Title- B. Ashok Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates P. Prasanna Kumar and Sandesh P. Nadiger.

Respondents: HCGP Harish Ganapathi, Advocates M. Rekha, and H.C. Shivaramu.

Click here to read/download the Order