The Bombay High Court in the case Sameer Amrut Kondekar Vs State of Maharashtra observed that when two people invest in a relationship, one of them cannot be blamed merely because the other alleged rape after things went south and the relationship did not culminate into a marriage. Thus, the court discharged a man accused of raping his girlfriend for eight years.
The bench headed by Justice Bharati Dangre in the case observed and has set aside the trial court’s order wherein the court refused to discharge the man under section 376, section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a complaint filed by his 27-year-old girlfriend in 2016.
The court stated that two matured persons who are coming together and investing in a relationship, the court cannot blame one person only because the other person complained of the act at some point of time when the relationship did not go well and for whatever reason need not ultimately culminate into the marriage.
However, it has been observed by the High Court that the sexual relations of them were not only on the promise of marriage but also because the woman loved the accused. Adding to it, the court stated that a promise of marriage did not precede every sex episode.
Facts of the case:
In the said case, the court was hearing a revision application filed by the accused, wherein assailing the trial court’s order from 2019 refusing to discharge him in the case filed by his ex. It has been observed by the Dindoshi sessions court that as per the complainant the case was not of a consensual relationship because sometimes the intercourse was forceful. The complaint filed also alleged that she met the guy through Orkut in 2008 and the two fell in love by 2013. Therefore, their parents know about their relationship.
As per the women, she permitted the relationship on the assurance of marriage but when it has been asked by her, he refused. Thus, in 2016 their FIR was registered, their relationship turned sour.
The bench stated that the trail courts refused to discharge the Accused by exercising power available, the same cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation, that at some time the intercourse was done forcibly.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for the man. The counsel, APP PN Dabholkar represented the State.
