The Orissa High Court has acquitted a 25-year-old man convicted of raping a married woman, emphasizing that criminal law should not be misused as a tool in failed personal relationships. The judgment, delivered by Justice S.K. Panigrahi on May 22 and uploaded online on May 27, set aside the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by a fast-track court in Koraput district.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly entered the woman's house and sexually assaulted her on the night of May 21, 2022, while she was alone. The additional district and sessions judge (fast track) of the special court in Jeypore convicted him under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 10, 2025. The man, currently lodged at Jeypore Jail, filed a criminal appeal the same year.
High Court's Observations
Justice Panigrahi noted that the evidence on record did not establish absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that consensual relationships between adults cannot later be converted into criminal prosecutions without clear proof of lack of consent. “Where a mature and married woman voluntarily consents to sexual intercourse and subsequently seeks to characterise the same as an offence of rape, the allegations are required to be examined with greater caution and circumspection,” the judge said.
The High Court further stated that “mere consensual intimacy, arising out of a voluntary relationship between adults, cannot ipso facto be brought within the ambit of the offence of rape unless the essential ingredients constituting absence of free consent are prima facie established.” It also cautioned against mechanically invoking Section 90 of the IPC, which deals with consent obtained under fear or misconception, without clear evidence.
Prosecution Case Deficient
The High Court described the prosecution case as deficient, stating it had “conspicuously failed to establish, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the foundational elements of criminal intent and want of consent.” The judgment emphasized that “permitting every failed or strained relationship between consenting adults to be subsequently transformed into a criminal prosecution for the offence of rape would run contrary to the true spirit, object, and sanctity underlying the law relating to sexual offences.”
Conclusion
Holding that the trial court had improperly appreciated the evidence and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, the High Court quashed the conviction. The accused's advocate, Subodh Kumar Mohanty, confirmed the development.
