MADURAI: Clearly distinguishing between an approved live-in relationship and an induced sexual relationship, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a man cannot be convicted for rape in case of a failed live in relationship.Thanks to this fine line of legal distinction by Justice S Tamilvanan, a Tiruchy-based man Karthick, who had married an Indian woman after a two-year live-in relationship with an NRI in Australia, has been temporarily spared a seven years rigorous imprisonment term.A trial court in Tiruchy had imposed the sentence on Karthick while holding him guilty of committing ‘rape’ in a case based on a complaint filed by 29-year-old Kavitha.The prosecution’s case was that during his stay in Sydney, Karthick had developed an affair with Kavitha, the daughter of an Indian restaurateur, who had migrated to Australia 13 years ago.Thereafter, the two started living together “like husband and wife” in a separate house and got engaged in September 2007. But in July 2009, Karthick flew back to India to get married to one Immaculate. On learning about this, Kavitha came to Tiruchy and filed a police complaint against Karthick.Relying on the prosecution, the trial judge convicted Karthick of committing rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment.Seeking a direction to suspend the sentence, Karthick moved the High Court here. His counsel Veera Kathiravan argued that since the complainant was a major aged around 25 years when she began living in with Karthick, the charge of rape can’t be raised. The ingredients to constitute an offence of rape — such as “against her will”, “without her consent” or “forced consent” — were absent in this case.Accepting the argument, Justice Tamilvanan held: “Admittedly, the prosecutrix is not an illiterate woman, but highly education, having affluent status. There was love affair between the petitioner/accused and the prosecutrix…Even as per the complaint, the occurrence had taken place continuously for about two years since 2007, after they started living together. Hence, it (physical relationship) is not possible without the consent of prosecutrix.”The judge observed that at best Karthick can be convicted only on the charge of giving “false assurance to marry her for getting her consent to have sexual relationship with her and subsequently, fail to comply with his promise,” which would attract a maximum punishment of a year’s jail along with fine.Holding that there was no prima facie ground to constitute a rape, he suspended the sentence imposed on Karthick and granted bail.
Comments
0 comment