{"id":5780,"date":"2025-10-14T22:30:41","date_gmt":"2025-10-14T17:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=5780"},"modified":"2025-10-14T22:33:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-14T17:03:13","slug":"rajeev-kumar-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/10\/14\/rajeev-kumar-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh\/","title":{"rendered":"RAJEEV KUMAR SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author: Indira Chakraborty<\/strong> a 3rd Year, B.A.LL.B at Shyambazar Law College, The University of Calcutta<\/strong><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

DATE OF THE CASE: 18th June 2025<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

PETITIONER NAME: Rajeev Kumar Sahu<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT NAME: State of Chhattisgarh and Complainant<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

BENCH\/JUDGE NAME: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

CITATION: CRR No. 552 of 2021; 2025:CGHC:24675<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

IMPORTANT SECTIONS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE: Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 227 and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

FACTS OF THE CASE<\/b><\/p>\n

The case originated from a First Information Report filed by a complainant woman from West Bengal who worked at an NGO in Bilaspur. The complainant alleged that she met Rajeev Kumar Sahu in 2008 during a social gathering when she was already separated from her first husband whom she had married in 1991.<\/span> According to her allegations, Sahu exploited her sexually from 2008 to 2019 under the false promise of marriage.<\/span> The complainant claimed that Sahu promised to keep her as his wife, arranged separate accommodation for her, and maintained a relationship during which they bore three children together.<\/span> She stated that she cohabitated with the accused, moved with him to Raigarh, and lived as husband and wife for approximately eleven years.<\/span> When Sahu allegedly failed to fulfill his promise of marriage, she filed an FIR at Chakradhar Nagar Police Station, Raigarh on 3rd March 2020, which was registered as FIR No. 68\/2020 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/span> Significantly, documentary evidence revealed contradictory behavior by the complainant. She had presented herself as Sahu’s wife in various official documents including Aadhaar cards, ration cards, voter identification cards, and bank records.<\/span> One month prior to filing the police complaint, she had approached the Sakhi One Stop Center, addressing herself as “wife of Rajeev Sahu” and claiming that their “love marriage” had been solemnized twelve years earlier.<\/span><\/p>\n

ISSUES RAISED<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Whether a consensual relationship extending over eleven years can be construed as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based solely on an alleged false promise of marriage?<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Whether the complainant’s consent, as an adult and previously married woman who cohabitated with the accused and bore three children, was vitiated under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code due to misconception of fact?<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Whether the Additional Sessions Judge correctly framed charges under Section 376 IPC when the evidence suggested a consensual relationship rather than sexual exploitation?<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated in cases where consensual relationships deteriorate without evidence of malafide intention from the beginning?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH THE SIDES<\/b><\/p>\n

    Arguments from Petitioner’s Side:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

    The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Ms. Fouzia Mirza, argued that the trial court had committed both factual and legal errors while framing charges under Section 376 of the IPC.<\/span> The defense contended that statements of neighbors recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly indicated that the applicant and complainant were in a consensual relationship and were cohabiting as husband and wife.<\/span> The petitioner emphasized that in the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she had identified herself as “wife of Rajeev,” demonstrating the consensual nature of their relationship.<\/span> The defense highlighted the contradictory position of the complainant who had presented herself as Sahu’s wife in official documents while simultaneously claiming sexual exploitation.<\/span> The petitioner’s counsel cited Supreme Court precedents including XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra to establish that adult, mature individuals in consensual relationships cannot later claim rape based on breach of promise to marry.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Arguments from Respondent’s Side:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

    The State’s counsel and the complainant’s advocate supported the framing of charges, arguing that the trial court had correctly applied the law.<\/span> They contended that the accused had exploited the complainant’s trust and vulnerability by making false promises of marriage, thereby vitiating her consent under Section 90 of the IPC.The prosecution argued that the complainant’s consent was obtained through deception and that the accused had maintained the relationship under false pretenses for over a decade. They maintained that the case warranted a full trial to determine the veracity of the allegations and that the charges were appropriately framed based on available evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

    RATIONALE<\/b><\/p>\n

    Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing the evolving jurisprudence on consensual relationships and rape allegations.<\/span> The Court applied established legal principles while considering the specific facts of the case.The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings, particularly Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala, which emphasized that consent under misconception must be induced rather than assumed.<\/span> The judgment observed that the complainant, being an adult and previously married woman, had knowingly cohabitated with the applicant.<\/span> The evidence demonstrated that she had presented herself as his wife in official government records, which was crucial in establishing the consensual nature of their relationship.<\/span> The Court noted the significance of the complainant’s conduct and statements. Her approach to the Sakhi One Stop Center where she described their relationship as a “love marriage” solemnized twelve years earlier contradicted her subsequent allegations of sexual exploitation.<\/span> This inconsistency undermined the prosecution’s case regarding the non-consensual nature of the relationship.The judgment emphasized that the relationship had continued for eleven years with the birth of three children, during which both parties had conducted themselves as husband and wife in society.<\/span> The Court found no evidence of resistance or complaint during this extended period, which would be expected in genuine cases of sexual exploitation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    DEFECTS OF LAW<\/b><\/p>\n

    The Court identified concerning trends in contemporary application of rape laws in India. Chief Justice Sinha observed that consensual relationships turning sour were increasingly being converted into criminal cases, burdening the judicial system and causing irreparable harm to individuals’ reputations.<\/span> The judgment highlighted the misuse of Section 376 of the IPC in cases where relationships fail due to various circumstances rather than initial malafide intention.<\/span> The Court noted that such misuse not only clogs the criminal justice system but also trivializes genuine cases of sexual assault.The Court emphasized the necessity for clear distinction between cases involving initial deception and those where relationships fail due to subsequent circumstances.<\/span> The judgment stressed that every broken promise of marriage cannot be treated as a false promise warranting prosecution under rape laws.<\/span><\/p>\n

    INFERENCE<\/b><\/p>\n

    The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in <\/span>Rajeev Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/i><\/b> represents a significant judicial intervention in clarifying the boundaries between consensual relationships and criminal sexual assault.<\/span> The Court’s observation that “a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State” establishes an important precedent for similar cases.<\/span> The judgment reinforces the principle that malafide intention must be established from the inception of the relationship rather than being inferred from its eventual failure.<\/span> The Court’s emphasis on examining the conduct of parties throughout the relationship, rather than merely their final statements, provides a balanced approach to adjudicating such complex cases.This ruling contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on consent and rape laws in India, particularly in cases involving long-term relationships.<\/span> The decision protects individuals from frivolous criminal prosecution while maintaining the integrity of rape laws for genuine cases of sexual assault. The judgment serves as a reminder that the criminal justice system must distinguish between failed relationships and criminal conduct, ensuring that the law serves justice rather than becoming a tool for personal vendetta.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Author: Indira Chakraborty a 3rd Year, B.A.LL.B at Shyambazar Law College, The University of Calcutta DATE OF THE CASE: 18th June 2025 PETITIONER NAME: Rajeev Kumar Sahu RESPONDENT NAME: State of Chhattisgarh and Complainant BENCH\/JUDGE NAME: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha CITATION: CRR No. 552 of 2021; 2025:CGHC:24675 IMPORTANT SECTIONS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE: Section […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5041,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5780"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5780"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5780\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5784,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5780\/revisions\/5784"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}