INTRODUCTION
The empowerment of women within the criminal justice system has enabled them to speak up and report instances of victimization, including cases of rape. However, the situation becomes complex and troubling when women file false rape accusations against a man after a breakup, driven by motives such as revenge, attributing blame for the relationship’s failure, or using the accusation as a means to pressure the man into marriage. Rape allegations by women are deeply concerning for society as a whole. It is important to acknowledge that women have the right to accuse a man of rape if they engaged in a sexual relationship based solely on the promise of marriage, and the man’s true motive was purely sexual. It is crucial to address both genuine allegations and false accusations, ensuring a fair and balanced approach that upholds justice and safeguards the rights of all parties involved.
- Failure of relationship is no ground for FIR for repeated rape when a woman had been willingly living with the man for years
Ansaar Mohammad v. The State Of Rajasthan & Anr[1]
The woman had been willingly living with the man for years and after the failure of the relationship, she had been repeatedly filing FIR against the man. The Supreme Court held that the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence of committing rape repeatedly on the same woman (Section 376(2) (n) IPC). The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the man accused of rape for failing to fulfil a promise to marry in a relationship where even a child was born.
The bench was hearing an appeal against the dismissal of anticipatory bail to the man accused under sections 376(2) (n), 377 and 506 IPC. The High Court had stated in the impugned order that it was acknowledged that the petitioner had established a relationship with the complainant by promising marriage. It was further noted that as a result of their relationship, a female child was born. Taking into account the gravity of the offence, the High Court expressed the opinion that it was not a suitable case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
- Subsequent refusal to marry after a sexual act is not sufficient to constitute an offence Of rape
Navaneeth N Nath v State of Kerala[2]
The Court stated that in the absence of any element that invalidates the consent for sexual intercourse, engaging in a consensual sexual relationship without resulting in marriage does not qualify as rape. Refusal to marry or the relationship not progressing towards marriage alone are not sufficient factors to establish rape, even if the individuals involved had engaged in a physical relationship. For a sexual relationship between a man and a woman to be considered rape, it must be against the woman’s will, without her consent, or when consent was obtained through force or deception.
“In order to convert a physical relationship between a man and a woman into rape due to the failure to abide by the promise of marriage, it is essential that the decision of the woman to engage in the sexual act must be based on the promise of marriage”.
Hence the position stands clear that if a man refuses to marry a woman after a sexual relationship has been established, but his decision not to marry was unknown to him prior to the initiation of the relationship, he cannot be accused of rape. Nonetheless, if the man deliberately misrepresented his promise of marriage with the intention of initiating the relationship, then the woman’s consent for engaging in sexual activity can be considered as obtained through misrepresentation. In such cases, the man can be accused of rape.
The Court also observed that the current scenario depicts a growing trend where young men and women are choosing to live together and enjoy relationships, similar to practices observed in foreign countries. It is only after they assess their compatibility on physical and emotional levels that they make the decision to marry. In some cases, if they later realize they are incompatible, they may end the relationship. There may be situations where one partner wishes to continue the relationship while the other does not. However, it should be noted that these circumstances do not qualify as instances of rape. While they may involve a breach of promise, such a breach does not constitute rape.
- Consensual Sex on false promise to marry
In such cases, the victim may consent to sexual activity believing that a genuine intention to marry exists, but the promise is ultimately broken. Engaging in sexual activity with someone based on a false promise of marriage is considered a breach of trust and a violation of the victim’s consent. It is important to note that consent must be freely given and fully informed for any sexual activity to be considered lawful and consensual.
The Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra[3] outlined two key factors to determine if “consent” is affected by a “misconception of fact” arising from a promise to marry. These factors are as follows:
- The promise of marriage must have been false, made in bad faith, and without any intention of being fulfilled when it was made.
- The false promise itself must be directly relevant or closely connected to the woman’s decision to engage in sexual activity.
Justice K. Babu of Kerela High Court in Navaneeth N Nath (supra) examined Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the term ‘consent’. It was observed that, according to Section 375, consent implies a voluntary agreement that involves the exercise of intelligence, understanding the nature and moral implications of the act. The consent must be given after fully considering the option to resist or give assent. In other words, genuine consent requires a voluntary decision made with full awareness and understanding of the situation. In such cases, where the consent is vitiated by misrepresentation, the man can be accused of rape.
The Kerela High Court in Kevin Simson v State of Kerela[4] refused to quash the rape case and observed that the accused obtained consent only for sexual relations.
The Supreme Court provided a substantial clarification on the differentiation between sexual assault and consensual sex within live-in relationships in the Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra[5] on November 22, 2018. The court emphasized the importance of carefully examining the man’s intentions regarding marriage to the victim. It stated that if the man had genuinely intended to marry the victim, it would constitute a case of consensual sex. However, if the man had deceitful motives and made false promises of marriage solely to satisfy his lust, it would fall under the category of cheating or deception, rather than consensual sex. The court highlighted the need for a thorough assessment of the man’s intentions and actions in such cases.
CONCLUSION
It is indeed crucial to differentiate between false and genuine rape cases to ensure that actual victims receive justice and the justice system remains unbiased. Given that evidence regarding consent in these cases is often circumstantial, it becomes imperative to conduct thorough investigations. Consent needs to be inferred from the circumstances in which the woman was placed, as direct evidence may be lacking. It is essential that investigations into such cases are conducted without any bias, leaving no room for partiality or prejudice. By maintaining a fair and impartial approach, we can strive to protect the rights of both the accuser and the accused, and ensure that justice is served.
[1] 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
[2] 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
[3] AIR 2019 SC 4010
[4] 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
[5] AIR 2019 SC 327