Pranav B Prem

The Karnataka High Court, in a significant judgment, held that consensual acts between an accused and the victim for a sexual relationship do not grant the accused a license to assault the woman. This observation was made by the Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna in a criminal petition filed by a Circle Inspector challenging proceedings initiated against him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background

The petitioner, a Circle Inspector in the police department, was accused of sexual harassment by the complainant, who is the wife of a police constable. The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant began in 2017 when they met at a police station, where the complainant had come in connection with another case. Over time, the relationship grew intimate and physical. In 2021, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner at the Women’s Police Station, alleging harassment and threats. She later accused the petitioner of forcibly taking her to a hotel, sexually assaulting her, and physically assaulting her, leaving her with injuries that required medical treatment. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet filed against him, contending that the relationship was consensual and thus did not amount to repeated rape as defined under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

Court’s Observations

Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked: “I deem it appropriate to hold that consensual acts between the accused and the victim for having a sexual relationship can never become a license to the man to assault the lady. The case at hand projects gross misogynist brutality upon the complainant.”

Analyzing the sequence of events, the court acknowledged that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual over a period of four years. The Bench stated: “If the narration in the complaint or the averments in the statement of objections or even the summary of the charge sheet is taken note of, the complainant visits the petitioner for the first time in the year 2017 in connection with the affairs of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedhike of Shivamogga District of which the complainant was the President. It is from the said meeting blossoms friendship, and friendship into relationship.”

The court further noted that the acts between the petitioner and the complainant were consensual and not obtained through fraud, force, or deceit. Consequently, the charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC was dismissed.“Such consensual acts between the petitioner and the complainant, for four long years, cannot be termed as offence of repeated rape, though the projection is that consent was obtained by fraud, dominance, or otherwise. The consent cannot be obtained by these methods for four long years,” the court emphasized.

Sustenance of Other Charges

While the court obliterated the charge under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, it sustained other charges, including Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC. Addressing the complainant’s allegations of physical assault and threats, the court observed: “The other offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. What has happened on 11-11-2021, which forms the fulcrum of the lis, as observed hereinabove and the statements recorded thereon, would clearly indicate violent behaviour of the petitioner upon the complainant.”

Medical Evidence and Witness Testimonies

The court also referred to medical evidence and statements from witnesses that corroborated the complainant’s claims of physical assault. The medical certificate recorded injuries, including pain in the neck, bleeding from the nose, and tenderness over the left side of the abdomen. One key witness, Abdul Shukoor, a constable, testified about transporting the complainant and the petitioner in a car on the night of the alleged incident. His statement highlighted that the petitioner took the complainant to a hotel room where she later alleged she was assaulted. The complainant’s account, supported by these testimonies, indicated that the petitioner’s actions on the night of the incident amounted to violent assault, irrespective of their consensual past relationship. 

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Petition, obliterated the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and sustained the other alleged offences.

Cause Title: B. Ashok Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3594 OF 2022 

Date: January-10-2025

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna 

[Read/Download order]