Rejects the woman’s defence that she was not aware of the Hindu Marriage Act

A court here has acquitted a man of rape charge levelled by a married woman having two children, saying that their physical relationship was consensual as the latter had promised to marry her.

The court also rejected the argument of the woman that she believed the promise made by the man. When the court said that under the Hindu Marriage Act, she could not have married when her earlier marriage was surviving; the woman said she was not aware of the law.

But the court rejected her defence saying that not knowing the law could not be a defence. The court said that the physical relationship between the couple was consensual.

The woman had come to the Capital from Uttar Pradesh after having been deserted by her husband. She had two children from him. She started working in a jeans factory here and met the accused near the factory. They became friendly and started living together in a rented house for which the man had given Rs.1 lakh in advance to the landlady.

However, after a few months they quarrelled and started living separately. But then came together again and started staying together. During the period, the man kept on assuring her that he would marry her. But he also used to threaten her not to share their relationship with her family members.

The woman also complained that the man used to beat her. One day, according to the complaint by the woman, the man forcibly had physical relationship with her. She immediately lodged a complaint with the Prasad Nagar police about it. But a woman sub-inspector in her deposition told the court that there was no mention of rape in her complaint.

Acquitting the accused Vijay Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja said: “Upon considering the entire evidence on record, it thus appears that the physical relations between the accused and prosecutrix were clearly consensual. The prosecutrix, despite being married, entered into physical relationship with the accused, presumably knowing that she could not contract marriage with the accused as her marriage was still in subsistence.”