KOCHI: The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, orally observed that a relationship between a man and a woman turning sour cannot lead to rape charges against the man. The observation was made when the bail application was filed by Navaneeth N Nath, a Central Government Counsel of the High Court and an accused in a rape case, came up for hearing.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Chander, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in an era when living together is the fashion, a subsequent withdrawal of one person from the company of another even after having sexual intercourse, during the time they lived together will not give rise to a case of rape. It is only a mere breach of promise and will not attract the offence of rape. He also submitted that nobody has a case where the victim allowed herself to have sexual relations after the petitioner promised that he would marry her.
Refuting the allegation of the prosecution regarding forceful abortion, the counsel also submitted that the complainant herself got admitted to the hospital for abortion and it was done with her consent. If the case is that she has not given consent, then the investigation team should have implicated the hospital authorities for doing it.
The court also pointed out that now there are instances that young men and women living together, enjoying relationships like in foreign countries. It is only after they understand their physical and mental compatibility that they decide to get married. At a later stage, if they realise that they are incompatible, they both may end the relationship. There might be situations where one of them prefers to continue in the relationship but the other does not. But all of these are not situations that will amount to a case of rape. It may be a breach of promise, but a breach of promise is not rape.
After the conclusion of the argument of all parties involved in the case, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reserved its order.
The prosecution argued that whatever consent was obtained was based on a misconception of facts, hence the offence of rape will be attracted in this case.
The court orally observed relationships have evolved over time and that youths these days have a different outlook on relationships but the fact that the relationship did not work out will not prima facie attract the offence of rape. The change in relationships has led to an increasing number of rape allegations being raised after these couples break up and marry others.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he intended to marry the complainant and that the sexual relationship between them was completely consensual. He decided to marry another woman, only after their parents objected to the marriage between him and the complainant.
Opposing the bail plea, the counsel for the victim submitted that their sexual relationship was based on an absolute promise to marry which has now proved to be false.