Why Bombay High Court quashed rape case against Goa musician though the first encounter was non-consensual

The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case filed against Goa musician after observing that though there was no consent of the victim during the first instance of sexual activity with him, the subsequent sexual encounters happened with her consent [L v. State of Goa].A bench of Justice MS Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes reached this decision after reviewing the material, which indicated that the relationship between the musician and the complainant was consensual and not based on promise of marriage as was claimed by the complainant-woman.The musician, a 32-year-old from Fatorda in Goa, was accused of rape by a 38-year-old woman. According to the complaint filed at the Women’s Police Station in Panaji on January 25, 2024, the two had met at October Fest at Inox Panaji and later communicated via Instagram. .On January 7, the musician reportedly expressed his intention to marry the woman in front of her grandmother despite her reluctance. The following day, he allegedly took her to a friend’s dinner and forcibly had sex with her, reassuring her that it was acceptable because he intended to marry her. Over the next several days, the couple reportedly engaged in sexual relations on multiple occasions, seven times in total, under the promise of marriage. However, starting January 19, the musician began avoiding the complainant, citing his mother’s disapproval due to her prior civil registration with another man. The complainant later discovered she was pregnant and subsequently filed the FIR.The court while quashing the FIR highlighted: “At this stage, we have to be mindful that we cannot adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. We find that even if the allegations made in the complaint and the materials on record are taken at their face value, what is revealed from the statement under Section 164 is that on 08.01.2024, the complainant had gone out for dinner with the petitioner and as it was late, the complainant stayed in the flat of the petitioner. In the middle of the night, the petitioner entered the complainant's bedroom and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The complainant cried and asked him as to why he had committed this act, when he told her that he treats her like his wife and he had promised to get married with her. On the next day after lunch, the petitioner dropped the complainant home. From the allegations, it is seen that the prosecutrix did not consent to the sexual relationship. There was thus no consent or the promise of marriage.”.Despite this, the Court observed that subsequent sexual activity between the musician and the complainant was consensual. “The complainant had adequate knowledge and significant maturity to understand the consequences associated with the act she was consenting to. The complainant was capable of understanding the complications and issues surrounding her relationship with the petitioner.” The Court found that while the initial encounter was alleged to be non-consensual, the subsequent sexual activity was consensual as the complainant voluntarily continued the relationship..The Court further clarified that the criteria for a rape charge under Section 90 of the IPC on consent given under a misconception of fact, were not fulfilled. “The physical relation between the parties had developed with the consent of the complainant and though she alleged that on the first occasion, the petitioner had forcible sexual relation, it is alleged that there were 7 instances when the petitioner and the complainant had sexual relations with consent,” the Court said..The bench concluded that the evidence did not support the claim of rape and thus quashed the FIR and the chargesheet..Advocates Arun Bras De Sa, Kyle D’Souza and Mark Valadares appeared for the musician.Public Prosecutor SG Bhobe appeared for the stateAdvocates Rohan Desai, Ashay Priolkar and Pranav Pathak appeared for the complainant.[Read Judgment]