Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, observed that while a relationship between a brother-in-law (Jija) and sister-in-law (Sali) is immoral, it does not necessarily amount to an offence of rape if the woman is a major and consents to the relationship. The Court’s remarks came during the hearing of a bail application filed by an accused, who had been booked under Sections 366 (kidnapping), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the allegations made by the wife’s sister (Sali) that the applicant, her brother-in-law (Jija), enticed her under the false promise of marriage and sexually assaulted her. The accused, who had been arrested in July 2024, had denied the allegations and sought bail. His counsel argued that the allegations were false, and although the relationship between the two was illicit, it did not constitute rape. The Allahabad High Court, after considering the facts, granted bail to the accused, ruling that while the relationship was immoral, it did not amount to an offence of rape as the woman was a major and had consensually entered the relationship.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The counsel for the accused, in his argument, sought to convince the Court that the allegations were baseless and that the applicant had not enticed the alleged victim as claimed by her. He argued that the applicant and the alleged victim had developed an illicit relationship, but it was consensual, and there was no coercion involved. The defence further pointed out that the alleged victim had initially denied any allegations against the applicant in her Section 161 CrPC statement but later changed her version during her Section 164 CrPC statement, where she supported the prosecution’s case and claimed that she had developed a relationship with the applicant and had married him. The defense also emphasized that the alleged victim was a major, and therefore, her consent to the relationship could not be overlooked.

On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), opposed the bail application. The AGA highlighted the gravity of the charges, especially the offence of rape, and argued that the applicant had enticed the woman under the false promise of marriage and then sexually assaulted her. However, the prosecution could not dispute the fact that the alleged victim was a major at the time of the incident, and from the available record, it was unclear whether she was not a consenting party to the relationship.

The prosecution’s case was weakened by the fact that the victim had initially denied the allegations but later changed her statement. The Court noted that the victim’s change in stance raised questions about the credibility of her testimony. It was also observed that the relationship, though immoral, had not been coerced, and the woman had consented to it as a major.

Court’s Judgment:

In light of the arguments presented by both sides, the Allahabad High Court carefully analyzed the case. Justice Sameer Jain, who authored the judgment, took note of the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. Initially, in her Section 161 CrPC statement, the alleged victim denied the allegations against the applicant. However, in her subsequent Section 164 CrPC statement, she admitted that she had developed a relationship with the applicant and that they had even married. This shift in the victim’s statement raised doubts about the veracity of her claims.

Despite this, the Court emphasized that the victim was a major at the time of the incident, and there was no clear evidence to suggest that she had not consented to the relationship. The Court observed that although the relationship between the accused and the victim was immoral, as they were related through marriage, the lack of evidence of coercion or force meant that the charges of rape could not be sustained. The Court noted that consensual sexual activity between two adults, even in the context of an immoral relationship, did not attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC.

The Court further acknowledged that the applicant had been arrested in July 2024 and had no previous criminal history. Taking into account the fact that the accused had no prior convictions, and given the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the Court found that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, the applicant had been in custody for several months, and the Court deemed it appropriate to grant him bail, considering the circumstances and the fact that the charges did not appear to be supported by solid evidence.

In granting bail to the accused, the Court emphasized that while the relationship was morally objectionable, the legal standard for rape had not been met. The judgment highlighted the importance of consent and the age of the victim in cases of sexual offences. The Court’s ruling was based on the principle that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was not a consenting party to the relationship.