The court said the 22-year-old mother was well-educated and it cannot be said that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the acts which she consented to.
“Her consent to physical relations, if any, was an act of conscious reason. Where was the compulsion for her to establish physical relations first without ensuring that the accused was willing to perform marriage with her after getting divorce from his wife? Even she was not legally divorced in October 2014,” said Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Kumar.
“She was mature enough to fully understand as to what was happening between the two. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it was an act of promiscuity on the part of the prosecutrix and not an act induced by misconception of fact,” he said.
The court discharged the man, saying the material placed before it do not disclose the grave
suspicion against the accused for framing a charge against him for the alleged offences of rape and criminal intimidation under the IPC.
The judge said court cannot act merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case.
According to the prosecution, the woman had said she got married in 2003 and got divorced in 2014 and while the divorce proceedings were going on, she met the accused, a colleague of her former husband.