Allahabad High Court Overturns Conviction in Live-in Partner Case, Highlights Legal Anachronisms
In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the conviction of a man accused of abduction and rape involving his live-in partner, emphasizing that existing laws were formulated at a time when the concept of live-in relationships was non-existent. The court observed that such legal frameworks disproportionately favor women, leading to frequent FIRs and convictions against men when these relationships dissolve.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The case originated from an appeal challenging an order by the Special Judge, Exclusive Court (Pocso Act), Maharajganj district, dated March 6, 2024. The appellant faced trial based on a case lodged in August 2021, involving charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Pocso Act, and the SC/ST Act. These included sections 323 (assault), 363 and 366 (abduction for marriage), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), and others.
The Maharajganj court had previously convicted the appellant, sentencing him to severe penalties: seven years imprisonment under IPC sections 363 and 366, one year under section 323, 20 years under the Pocso Act, and life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act, along with fines.
Court's Observations on Live-in Relationships and Legal Bias
A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra noted that this case exemplifies a growing trend among youth who cohabit without formal marriage, influenced by Western ideas. The bench stated, "We find that this case is an example of the increasing tendency of youth living together without solemnisation of marriage. After such relationships fail, FIRs are lodged, and due to laws favoring women—enacted when live-in concepts were absent—men often face convictions."
The prosecution alleged that a youth from an OBC community enticed a Dalit girl from his village in February 2021, with promises of marriage. The girl returned to her parents in August 2021, leading to the complaint. Her mother claimed the girl was lured but not married, and shame delayed police reporting. The appellant countered, alleging false charges for financial gain, including a claim for Rs. 8,25,000 compensation from the Social Welfare Department.
Key Findings and Rationale for Quashing Conviction
The High Court scrutinized the evidence, particularly the victim's age. It noted that a certificate from the CMO Maharajganj proved she was about 20 years old on August 19, 2021, making her a major at the time of the alleged crime. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution's age claims, with the mother initially stating 18.5 years in the FIR but later revising it to 17 years in court testimony.
Based on this, the court concluded:
- The victim willingly eloped with the appellant and lived with him for six months, indicating consensual cohabitation.
- Convictions under IPC sections 363 and 366 for abduction were unwarranted, as no forcible abduction occurred.
- Since the victim was a major, the conviction under Section 6 of the Pocso Act was unjustified.
- The rape charge under IPC section 376 was improper, given the consensual nature of their relationship over six years.
- Punishment under the SC/ST Act was unsustainable, as it depends on IPC convictions that were invalidated.
- The assault charge under IPC section 323 was also set aside, as the appellant was not directly implicated in pushing the victim.
The court emphasized the victim's conduct—leaving home voluntarily, cohabiting for months, and only contacting family after separation—as evidence of a consensual relationship that later soured.
Final Order and Implications
In its judgment, the bench set aside the trial court's order, directing the appellant's release from jail if not required in other cases. This ruling underscores the need for legal reforms to address modern relationship dynamics, such as live-in partnerships, which challenge outdated statutes. It sparks a broader conversation on balancing gender justice with evolving social norms in India's judicial landscape.
