The Supreme Court of India has clarified the distinction between consensual relationships and rape, emphasizing that touching is not considered rape without penetration. This ruling aims to prevent the misapplication of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) and rape provisions in cases where relationships have turned sour.
The presumption by the Trial Court has upheld by the High Court that there was penetrative sexual assault, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same is neither supported by the medical report nor by the statement of the victim herself on three different occasions.
The Supreme Court thus modified the conviction to Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault), emphasizing that judicial interpretation must be grounded in evidence, not inference.
Key Points:
Consensual Relationships: The court has ruled that prolonged consensual relationships cannot be reinterpreted as rape simply because marriage did not occur.
False Promise of Marriage: A breach of promise to marry does not automatically constitute rape unless deception existed from the beginning.
Judicial Caution: The court emphasizes the need for judicial caution to avoid attributing malicious intent to what might be a disturbed civil association.
Important Rulings:
Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and all legal proceedings against the appellant, stating that a 16-year consensual relationship cannot be considered rape.
Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024): The court held that if a woman continues a relationship for years, she cannot later claim that all encounters were coerced.
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013): The court differentiated between consent and false promise of marriage, emphasizing that a mere breach of promise does not constitute rape.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s clarification that touching is not rape without penetration underscores the need for precision in legal definitions. This ruling has significant implications for rape cases, emphasizing the importance of judicial caution and careful consideration of evidence. Moving forward, it is crucial to apply these principles to ensure justice is served while protecting the rights of all individuals involved.
