Physical Relationship Was Consensual; No Case of Rape or Intimidation: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Shiv Pratap Singh Rana, Emphasizes Lack of Evidence and Consensual Nature of Relationship In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India quashed the rape and criminal intimidation charges against Shiv Pratap Singh Rana. The court, through its detailed examination, concluded that the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual and that the prosecution lacked substantial evidence to prove the allegations of rape and intimidation.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the prosecutrix on September 6, 2018, alleging that Shiv Pratap Singh Rana coerced her into a sexual relationship under threats of exposing private photographs. She claimed that in 2016, Rana threatened to upload her photos on WhatsApp if she did not comply with his demands. Subsequently, she traveled with him to Gwalior, where he allegedly raped her in his rented premises and continued to exploit her financially and emotionally on the false promise of marriage.

Rana was charged under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He sought discharge from these charges, but his application was rejected by the Sessions Court and later by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, Rana approached the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the proceedings.

The Supreme Court found significant inconsistencies in the statements made by the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The bench noted that the prosecutrix’s statements were contradictory and lacked coherence, casting doubts on the veracity of her allegations.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the absence of crucial evidence. Despite the prosecutrix's claims, neither the photographs nor the mobile phone purportedly used to capture them were recovered. Additionally, the alleged affidavit and stamp papers, which were supposedly proof of Rana's promise to marry, were not seized, nor was any jewelry recovered that the prosecutrix claimed to have given to Rana.

The court reiterated the legal principle that consent obtained under coercion or misconception of fact is not valid consent. However, in this case, the prosecutrix was found to have willingly participated in the relationship over an extended period. The court observed, "It is inconceivable that the prosecutrix, who was about 22 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, would accompany the appellant to a temple if she was being threatened by the appellant."

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering the judgment, highlighted the lack of concrete evidence to support the prosecutrix's claims. "The absence of photographs, mobile phones, affidavits, stamp papers, and jewelry critically undermines the prosecution's case. It is virtually impossible to prove the charges of rape and intimidation against the appellant," the bench noted.

The court discussed the definitions of rape and consent under Sections 375 and 90 IPC, respectively. It emphasized that for consent to be valid, it must be unequivocal and voluntary, without any form of coercion or deceit. In this case, the prolonged and consensual nature of the relationship between Rana and the prosecutrix, along with the absence of corroborative evidence, led the court to conclude that the charges could not stand.

The court also referred to precedents such as Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that consent under a misconception of fact must be directly related to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. The court found that such a misconception was not evident in this case.

Justice Bhuyan remarked, "Having regard to the above and in the overall conspectus of the case, we are of the view that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant cannot be said to be against her will and without her consent. On the basis of the available materials, no case of rape or of criminal intimidation is made out."

The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of substantial evidence in prosecuting cases of sexual violence and intimidation. By quashing the charges against Shiv Pratap Singh Rana, the court highlighted the necessity of concrete proof and consistent testimonies to uphold such serious allegations. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases, reinforcing the need for rigorous evidence before proceeding to trial.

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Shiv Pratap Singh Rana vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.