Consensual sex in polygamous relationship, in absence of false promise, not rape

Ss. 375 & 376 – Rape – Consent - Consensual sexual relationship - Absence of any false promises, inducement, persuasion or misstatement of fact or law by accused - Consensual sex in polygamous relationship, in absence of false promise, not rape

Held- In the conspectus that unfolds itself in the present case, the prosecutrix was aware that the Appellant was already married but, possibly because a polygamous relationship was not anathema to her because of the faith which she adheres to, the prosecutrix was willing to start a home with the Appellant. In these premises, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is culpable for the offence of rape; nay, reason relentlessly points to the commission of consensual sexual relationship, which was brought to an abrupt end by the appearance in the scene of the uncle of the prosecutrix. The Court is duty bound when assessing the presence or absence of consent, to satisfy itself that both parties are ad idem on essential features; in the case in hand that the prosecutrix was lead to believe that her marriage to the appellant had been duly and legally performed. It is not sufficient that she convinced herself of the existence of this factual matrix, without the appellant inducing or persuading her to arrive at that conclusion. It is not possible to convict a person who did not hold out any promise or make any misstatement of facts or law or who presented a false scenario which had the consequence of inducing the other party into the commission of an act. There may be cases where one party may, owing to his or her own hallucinations, believe in the existence of a scenario which is a mirage and in the creation of which the other party has made no contribution. If the other party is forthright or honest in endeavoring to present the correct picture, such party cannot obviously be found culpable. Rape is indeed a reprehensible act and every perpetrator should be punished expeditiously, severally and strictly. However, this is only possible when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there was no seduction; just two persons fatally in love, their youth blinding them to the futility of their relationship.

Case Law:
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Kerala;

Citation:
(2014) 5 SCC 678