Supreme Court says failed relationships cannot criminalise consensual acts

The Supreme Court on Friday said it was not its role to pass moral judgement on the choices and autonomy exercised by adults, who must face the consequences of decisions that may be wise or unwise, prudent or reckless, news agency Press Trust of India reported.

The court said criminal law could not be used to settle personal scores, seek revenge or force a person to act in a particular way. It made the observations while discharging a Kerala-based man of charges including rape, cheating and breach of trust.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said: “It is trite to reiterate at this stage that this court has not been entrusted to pass moral judgment on the varying exercises of free choice, autonomy and agency by individuals in the country. Adult men and women may freely make decisions that are wise or unwise, prudent or reckless and considerate or callous.”

The bench said such decisions could have undesirable, unexpected or deeply hurtful consequences. However, it added, this would not automatically turn the decisions and the resulting circumstances into criminal offences requiring state intervention.

The court said society and the judiciary must discourage the use of criminal law as a weapon after emotional discord between two consenting adults. According to PTI, the bench found that the woman and the man had been in a consensual relationship and had lived together as husband and wife from 1996 to 2003. The allegation of rape was made only after their relationship ended.

The bench acknowledged that, in India, social and cultural values place considerable importance on marriage. A woman may trust her partner and consent to physical intimacy on the assurance that the relationship will lead to a legally and socially recognised marriage or is based on such a marriage, it said.

The court said such consent could be invalid if it was later found that the woman had genuinely been kept entirely unaware of the true nature of the marriage or of the man’s existing marriage.

“There are certainly such genuine cases where trust is betrayed and dignity is compromised, lest the protective mantle of Section 376 along with Sections 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC would be rendered illusory for women who are truly wronged. However, the application of this principle must be guided by facts and evidence in each case, and not by mere allegations or moral presumptions,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court said the legislature had never intended to retrospectively criminalise consensual sexual acts between adults in a mutually affectionate relationship merely because the relationship later ended.

“It is unfortunate that despite judicial deprecation, this trend is increasing, and it is a matter of concern for the courts as often settlement of disputes comes with huge monetary considerations to be borne by the male accused,” it said.

The court discharged Santosh Kumar NP of charges of rape, cheating, breach of trust and other offences, holding that the necessary elements of the alleged offences had not been established.

“Prima facie, we hold that no case is made out against the appellant of having committed the said offences. In our view, the high court erred in concluding that there was sufficient material to make out a prima facie case against the appellant and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the petitions filed against the order of the trial court on a completely misconceived basis,” the bench said.

It added that the mere fact that a relationship had turned bitter could not convert earlier consensual sexual acts into offences of rape. “Such a conclusion would be putting the cart before the horse, predicating the prior act of consent on the outcome of the relationship itself into an offence,” it said.

According to the prosecution, the woman alleged that the man concealed an earlier marriage, married her while that marriage was still in force and had sexual intercourse with her after obtaining consent through what she described as an illegal marriage based on fraud. She also alleged that he deceitfully lived with her and led her to believe that they were lawfully married.

The woman, who had been divorced from an earlier marriage, alleged rape, cheating and breach of trust. She said they married in Mysuru and lived together from 1996 to 2003.

In discharging the man, the Supreme Court reiterated that failed relationships between consenting adults could not, by themselves, turn earlier consensual acts into criminal offences, while genuine cases of deception must be decided on the facts and evidence.

- Ends