Introduction:

In the case of a man accused of sexually exploiting a married woman under the pretext of providing her a government job, the Allahabad High Court recently granted bail while making significant observations about the assessment of prosecutrix statements in rape cases. The accused, arrested in August 2024, faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 342, 452, 506, 504, 323, and 406 of the IPC. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that while the prosecutrix’s statement should be given primary consideration in rape cases, it is no longer appropriate to presume that the prosecutrix would always narrate the entire truth. The case revolved around allegations of sexual abuse, false promises of marriage, and threats to make intimate photographs viral, with the accused claiming that the relationship was consensual.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The accused argued that the allegations were baseless and that the relationship was consensual, citing that the victim, despite being a married woman, willingly entered into an extramarital relationship. His counsel asserted that the FIR was lodged only after the victim’s family became aware of the affair, intending to protect her reputation. They further contended that as the victim was already married, the promise of marriage by the accused was implausible and irrelevant. The defense emphasized that the victim’s actions demonstrated consent, including her decision to leave her matrimonial home and relocate to her parental home.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state and the complainant opposed the bail application, maintaining that the accused had exploited the victim by making false promises and manipulated her into a vulnerable situation. They argued that the victim’s consent was obtained under deceitful pretenses, thereby amounting to rape. The prosecution also highlighted the gravity of the accused’s alleged actions, including threats to circulate intimate photographs, which aggravated the charges against him.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court granted bail to the accused after analyzing the facts and evidence presented. The bench observed that the victim, being a married woman, was capable of understanding the significance and morality of her actions. The judgment noted that the prosecutrix willingly engaged in an extramarital relationship with the accused and had not lodged a complaint after the initial incidents, indicating consent. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh emphasized that if the victim was not consenting, she could have reported the matter immediately, but instead, she continued the relationship and even moved to her parental home at the insistence of the accused.

The court further highlighted that the victim’s claim of being misled by promises of marriage was implausible, as she was already married and fully aware of the implications of her actions. The bench reiterated that the prosecutrix appeared to have consented to the relationship due to her affection and passion for the accused. Consequently, the court stressed the importance of not presuming the prosecutrix’s statements as entirely truthful in all rape cases, urging a nuanced approach to evaluating consent and truthfulness.

Based on these observations, the court granted bail to the accused, directing him to adhere to necessary conditions and cooperate with the legal process. The judgment emphasized the significance of distinguishing consensual relationships from exploitative ones, particularly in cases involving adult individuals capable of making informed decisions.