The bench of Justice Bharat H Dangre made the observations while allowing a revision application by man, argued through senior advocate Girish Kulkarni, challenging a March 2019 sessions court order that rejected his discharge application in the case.

The sessions court had rejected the plea on the ground that the case was not of consensual sexual intercourse, but as per the complaint filed by the woman, at times, the sexual intercourse was forcible as well.

The man was accused of raping his 27-year-old girlfriend, as per complaint filed by her in February 2016, after the relationship between the couple turned sour.

The High Court observed that refusal to discharge the man by the sessions court “cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation that at some time intercourse was forcible.”

“Two mature persons coming together and investing in a relationship, one cannot be blamed only because the other complained of the act at some point of time when the relationship did not go well and for whatever reason need not ultimately culminate into a marriage,” Justice Dangre noted.The woman had claimed she met the man through on social media in 2008, after which they became friends and she used to meet him during her visit to Mumbai.

She had claimed that in 2013, the friendship nurtured into a bond of love and the applicant promised to marry her. The woman had alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the man had sexual relations with her by consent or by force.

“Admittedly, the woman was major at the time when the relationship was established, both emotionally and physically. She was at the age where she is presumed to have sufficient maturity of understanding the consequences of her act and according to her own version, on some occasions, the relationship was consensual, but sometimes it was forcible,” the HC said.

The court added the relationship between the two continued for eight years and it cannot be said that only due to the woman’s misconception that the man was going to marry her that she consented to sex.

Justice Dangre said, “It can be seen that the applicant’s promise to marry the woman was not the only reason for permitting him to have sexual indulgence, as according to her own version, she was in love with the man. She was clearly conscious of the effect of sexual indulgence and the relationship being continued for a considerable length of time, and did not give rise to a conclusion that on every occasion, only on the promise of marriage the sexual relationship was established. 

“It appears that they resided together for some point of time and then they separated,” the HC noted. Allowing the man’s plea to set aside the sessions court order, the HC observed, “In any case, the physical relationship maintained with the (woman) was not solely on the promise of marriage but since she was in love with the (man), she permitted him to indulge physically and this was repeated on several occasions, according to her own version.”