Introduction
In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case against a 73-year-old man, who allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant for over 31 years. The Court, comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, concluded that the relationship was consensual, based on the evidence and circumstances presented in the case.
Case Background
The case centered on the complainant, who claimed that the accused had raped her in 1987 when she was called to his office under the pretext of making audit bills. The complainant was aware that the accused was married, yet she continued the relationship, believing his assurances that he would marry her. The complainant joined the accused's company right after passing her Class 12 exams. Over the years, the complainant maintained a sexual relationship with the accused, even after he suffered a heart attack in 1996.
Court’s Observations
The bench scrutinized the First Information Report (FIR) and noted that the complainant had not mentioned any objections to the relationship in her complaint. Justice Gokhale, in her judgment, pointed out that the complainant, an adult aware of the legal implications of a second marriage, had willingly continued the relationship. The complainant's silence and lack of action over the years, despite ample opportunities to break away, were significant in the Court's assessment.
Delayed FIR and Allegations
The Court found the delay in filing the FIR—lodged in September 2017—unexplained and lacking credibility. The judges remarked that the complainant’s argument, introduced only during the proceedings, was weak. The prolonged relationship, which spanned more than three decades, indicated a consensual arrangement rather than coercion. The Court emphasized that the complainant had sufficient chances to seek help from authorities, especially during the accused’s absence when he was hospitalized, but chose not to do so.
Incident of 1996 and Continuation of Relationship
An important incident cited by the Court was the accused’s heart attack in 1996. During his absence, the complainant managed the company’s affairs instead of seeking police assistance, further supporting the consensual nature of their relationship. The complainant’s continued association with the accused’s business and personal life weakened her claims of coercion and lack of consent.
Employment and Financial Dependency
The complainant’s assertion that she endured sexual abuse to retain her job was also scrutinized. The Court argued that over the years, she had ample opportunities to find alternative employment. The judges observed that her decision to approach the police only after the company shut down and after the accused refused to hand over certain documents and her gold Mangalsutra was indicative of a personal dispute rather than a genuine case of rape.
Legal Representation and Arguments
Advocates Hitesh G. Ramchandani and GJ Ramchandani represented the petitioner, while Assistant Public Prosecutor AS Shalgaonkar represented the State. Advocates Ninand Muzumdar, Ameya Khot, and Kenny V. Thakkar appeared for the complainant. The defense argued that the prolonged relationship and the complainant’s actions were evidence of consent, not rape.
Court’s Conclusion
The Bombay High Court ultimately concluded that the sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual and not against her will. The bench highlighted that the available material did not support the allegations of rape and cheating. The Court quashed the FIR, recognizing the case as one of a consensual relationship turning sour, rather than a criminal act of rape.
Implications and Legal Precedents
This judgment sets a significant precedent in cases involving long-term relationships and delayed allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely reporting and credible evidence in establishing the lack of consent. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in distinguishing between genuine cases of sexual abuse and personal disputes misrepresented as criminal offenses.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's decision to quash the rape case against the 73-year-old man reaffirms the principle that consensual relationships, even those involving complex personal dynamics, must be clearly differentiated from cases of sexual abuse. The judgment emphasizes the need for complainants to provide timely and credible evidence when alleging serious crimes such as rape, ensuring that the legal system protects the rights of all parties involved.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.