There can be just no gainsaying that it is high time and lawmakers must now definitely amend the rape laws and if a woman has sex with a men without force being used then it should not be termed rape because we are now living in 21^st century and not in 18^th century! Why should a woman promptly get ready to have sex with men without marriage and only on promise of marriage surrender her body willingly and later cry rape? This definitely merits prompt changes so that a woman whether married or unmarried stops having sex with men on any pretext whatsoever without marriage being consummated so that it acts as a strong deterrent to woman and also go a long way in checking misuse of rape laws by woman who for years has sex with men and later suddenly cry rape waking up after a long time and forwards promise of marriage as an excuse for surrendering her body to him!

It merits just no reiteration that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be! This will definitely usher in morality and women will think thousands times before having sex with men without consummation of marriage and will definitely go a long way in nipping in the bud the most regressive practice of women surrendering her body on pretext of marriage for years and later terming it as rape! It definitely brooks no more delay anymore longer now! It will also go a long way in checking abuse of penal laws meant for safety of women but which in reality are used as potent weapons to extract money from men and to put him in trouble by sending him to jail if he refuses to pay money or toe her line as she wants! This is what I find most unsettling which cannot be ever justified!

In addition, if a woman files false complaints of rape and it is proved that she did it intentionally then definitely she must be jailed for at least few years and also be made to pay huge compensation to men so that it acts as a strong deterrent against the growing nefarious tendency of exploiting women safety laws as potent dangerous tools to harass, humiliate and harangue men and extort huge money from them and if they don’t comply then make them suffer long imprisonment in jail for just no fault of theirs! The buck must stop now on this count! It is definitely most deeply disappointing that even in new revised penal laws we see no such changes having been made but still these much desired compelling changes can be incorporated in the new revised penal laws also if Parliament and our law makers collectively take decisive action on this count at the earliest! No denying or disputing it!

It is certainly in the fitness of things that the Chhattisgarh High Court in a most learned, laudable, latest and landmark judgment titled XYZ vs Siddharth Sarangi in ACQA No. 380 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:CGHC:26186-DB that was reserved on 17.06.2026 and then finally pronounced on 29.06.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold unmistakably that when two adults are in a long-term live-in relationship, the law presumes their physical relationship was consensual, and a subsequent refusal by man to marry woman would not amount to rape. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas said that while couples in live-in relationships may express a desire to eventually marry, such an expression does not by itself establish that the physical relationship between them existed solely because of a promise of marriage. We need to also note that this leading case stemmed from an appeal that had been filed by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape and unnatural sex. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the accused’s acquittal by the Trial Court and dismissed the woman’s appeal.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas for a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that,

“The acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/victim against the judgment dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 61/2023, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 376(2)(k)(n) and Section 377 of the IPC.”

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that,

“A perusal of the record would show that, the victim who is aged about 40 years, working as Project Manager with Municipal Corporation Bhilai, filed two written complaints dated 20.12.2022 (Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2) before the Outpost Khamhardih, Raipur mainly alleging that :-

A. After securing admission in April, 2019 to pursue the MBA programme at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, the victim became acquainted with the accused, Siddharth Sarangi. Initially, they interacted and discussed academic subjects and course-related matters. Thereafter, on 05.07.2019, the accused invited her to his residence on the pretext of studying together with other classmates. However, upon reaching the house, she found that no other students were present. It is alleged that the accused started flirting and teasing her, and thereafter, expressed his desire to establish a physical relationship with her. When she objected, the accused assured her that he intended to marry her. Relying upon the said assurance and promise of marriage, she entered into a physical relationship with him.

B. It is further alleged that whenever the victim asked the accused about marriage, he used to avoid it. After completion of their examinations on 29.08.2021, the accused informed her over the telephone that his parents were not agreeing for their marriage. Thereafter, despite repeated attempts made by the victim through telephone calls and WhatsApp messages, the accused largely avoided communications. Subsequently, he informed her that although his mother opposed to the marriage on account of her age, her status as a divorcee, and her Christian faith, he would try to convince his family. It is also the case of the victim that on 22.11.2021 the accused got her medically examined and, on the advice of the doctor, arranged for certain blood tests. Thereafter, the accused informed her that her blood test reports were not satisfactory and, for that reason, he could not marry her. He further refused to meet her and informed her that his parents were advising him to consider another girl for marriage.

C. Thereafter, on 28.11.2021, when the victim visited the residence of the accused and requested him to marry her, the accused, taking advantage of her vulnerable situation, subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes. It is also the case of the victim that on the following day, i.e., 29.11.2021, the accused visited her residence, stayed there for some time, and once again assured her that he would marry her. Thereafter, the parties continued to communicate through mobile phone calls and WhatsApp messages. Subsequently, the accused stopped communicating with the victim and blocked her mobile number. Left with no alternative, she approached the Women’s Commission by lodging a complaint. During the proceedings before the Commission, a settlement was proposed involving certain monetary consideration. However, the victim did not find the proposed settlement acceptable and, accordingly, returned the cheque before the Commission on 07.07.2022.

D. On the basis of the written complaints filed by the victim (Ex.P/01 and Ex.P/02) a First Information Report (Ex.P/3) bearing Crime No. 380/2022 was registered on 20.12.2022 against the accused at Police Outpost Khamhardih, Raipur, under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur District (Chhattisgarh). After committal, vide order dated 21.02.2023, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur for trial.”     

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that,

“On the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused and recorded its finding that the prosecution has failed to prove, by reliable and cogent evidence, the charges against the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish that, during the period from 01.07.2019 to 28.11.2021 the accused committed rape upon the victim on multiple occasions by inducing her with a promise of marriage while being in a position of control or influence her, without her free consent. Further, it has also not been proved that on 28.11.2021 the accused voluntarily engaged in carnal intercourse with the victim against the order of nature and acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved with this order, the victim has filed this acquittal appeal.”

It cannot be just glossed over that the Division Bench lays bare in para 9 holding that,

“From the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly that of the victim (PW/1), it emerges that the alleged act of sexual intercourse took place for the first time on 05.07.2019. It is further evident from her own testimony that the accused had refused to marry her on 31.08.2021, whereas the First Information Report has been lodged on 20.12.2022, i.e., after more than three years from the commencement of the relationship. The victim, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she was willing to settle the dispute before the Women’s Commission upon payment of a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- but the accused had handed over a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 15.06.2022 with an assurance that the balance amount would be paid in cash upon execution of an agreement whereas the agreement was to be executed immediately upon receipt of the agreed amount. Since, she did not execute the agreement, payment under the cheque was stopped. Thereafter, she deposited the cheque to the Women’s Commission vide Ex. D/1 dated 07.07.2022. In paragraph 17 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was residing with the accused in a live-in relationship for about two years. She has also admitted that it was mutually agreed between them that their marriage would be solemnized only with the consent of both families.”

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 10 that,

“Anand Robert (PW/2) brother of the victim has admitted in his evidence that the victim has informed him that physical relationship was developed between her and the accused because of the love affair and the caste of both of them was different.”

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 11 that,

“Dr. Vidya Shiv Kumar (PW/4) has admitted in the cross-examination that the victim has neither made any complaint to her about any forceful physical relationship, made any complaint regarding unnatural sex, nor any injury was found on medical examination regarding unnatural sex.”

Most significantly, most remarkably, most commendably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that,

“From a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the victim, who was about 40 years of age at the relevant time, was fully aware of the nature and consequences of entering into a physical relationship with the accused. The evidence further indicates that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual. It has also come on record that the parties remained in a live-in relationship for nearly two years, thereby demonstrating a long drawn relationship between them. The learned Trial Court, upon a proper appreciation of the factual matrix and the evidence adduced by the parties, recorded a finding in paragraph 37 of the impugned judgment that the parties had subsequently assumed a money dispute and the physical relationship was consensual in nature, and there is no medical evidence to substantiate the allegation of unnatural sexual intercourse. Having regard to the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.”

Briefly stated, the Division Bench points out in para 13 that,

“The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the victim and the accused were living in long drawn relationship as such, the physical relationship is consensual relationship. As such, the accused cannot be punished for commission of offence of rape is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravish Singh Rana (supra).”

Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 14 that,

“In view of the foregoing discussion and law on the subject, we are of the opinion that learned trial Court has not committed any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in passing the judgment of acquittal, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.”