“Goa Bench of Bombay High Court Quashes Rape Case Against Musician, Citing Consensual Relationship Despite Initial Non-Consent”
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case filed against a Goa-based musician, despite acknowledging that the first instance of sexual activity was non-consensual. The court found that subsequent sexual encounters between the complainant and the musician were consensual, leading to the dismissal of the charges.
The bench, comprising Justice MS Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes, reviewed the evidence and concluded that the relationship between the musician and the complainant was consensual, contrary to her claim that it was based on a promise of marriage.
The case involved a 32-year-old musician from Fatorda, Goa, accused of rape by a 38-year-old woman. According to the complaint filed on January 25, 2024, at the Women’s Police Station in Panaji, the two met at the October Fest at Inox Panaji and later began communicating via Instagram.
On January 7, the musician allegedly expressed his intention to marry the woman in front of her grandmother, despite her reluctance. The next day, he reportedly took her to a friend’s dinner and had forcible intercourse with her, reassuring her it was permissible because he intended to marry her. Over the following days, they engaged in sexual relations on multiple occasions under this promise of marriage.
However, by January 19, the musician began avoiding the complainant, citing his mother’s disapproval due to her prior civil registration with another man. After discovering she was pregnant, the woman filed an FIR.
In its ruling, the court acknowledged that while the first sexual encounter was alleged to be non-consensual, subsequent interactions were consensual. The court stated:
“The complainant had adequate knowledge and maturity to understand the consequences of her actions, and she voluntarily continued the relationship.”
The court also ruled that the criteria for a rape charge under Section 90 of the IPC, which addresses consent obtained under a misconception of fact, were not met. The bench noted that although the initial act was alleged to be forcible, there were seven instances where the complainant consented to sexual relations thereafter.
The court, therefore, quashed the FIR and chargesheet, concluding that the evidence did not support the rape allegations.
Advocates Arun Bras De Sa, Kyle D’Souza, and Mark Valadares represented the musician, while Public Prosecutor SG Bhobe appeared for the state. Advocates Rohan Desai, Ashay Priolkar, and Pranav Pathak represented the complainant.
