In a significant judgement, a city court has held that every premarital sex between two adults does not amount to rape even if it is on the promise of marriage. The court observed that the women, particularly educated and working, enter into a sexual relationship on the assurance of marriage ‘at their own peril’.
“Premarital sex is immoral and against the tenets of every religion. Every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by the boy,” Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat said while acquitting an employee with a multinational company of the charges of rape.
“When a grown up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril. She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise. He may or may not do so. She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows premarital sex,” the court said.
In her complaint, the woman, who is an orphan, had alleged that the man, whom she had met through a chat website in July 2006, used to have physical relations with her by promising to marry her. When the woman got pregnant in 2008, the man instead of marrying her, asked her to abort the foetus by saying that he would marry her once his sisters get married, she had alleged. However, the accused, during the trial had opposed the woman’s claim and said that they became friends through a social networking website and used to meet occasionally but he never indulged in sexual intercourse with her.
The court took note of the submission of the man and said the woman was ‘intelligent enough’ to understand the moral quality and consequences of her act, so there were no chances of her being misled by him. “There is no evidence on record to show that she (woman) consented to sexual intercourse with the accused only on the latter’s promise of marriage and otherwise, she would not have given her consent for the same,” the court held.
ASJ Bhat said, “I consider it not proper for a girl to engage in sexual intercourse with a boy who simply tells her that he is going to be her husband and there is nothing wrong in engaging her into sexual intercourse with him. It was for the girl in such circumstances to weigh the pros and cons of the intended act and to decide whether or not she should submit her body to the boy.”
The judge also said, “I myself do not feel convinced and satisfied that the prosecutrix was misled by any promise or utterance of the man and she gave her consent to the sexual intercourse with him because of the same. It appears that the woman being a mature, educated and employed lady, understood the nature and consequence of sexual indulgence with him and agreed to have sexual intercourse only on account of her love and passion for him and not solely on account of any alleged misrepresentation.”