A single bench of Justice M Dhandapani of the Madras High Court while setting aside the conviction order of an individual named Rahul who was convicted for the offences under sections 375, 376,417, and 90 of the IPC, emphasized the importance of safeguarding innocent men from being victimized by vicious women on rape cases under the pretext of marriage.

The bench further said the escalating cases of sexual assault against women in India it is the duty of the court to differentiate the grain from the chaff while analyzing evidence.

The bench said “However, it cannot be lost sight of that under the pretext of false promises, women are wrongly utilised in various acts, including the act of eternal submission to satisfy the carnal and physical desires of the opposite gender, even with their consent and in many cases against their wish, either by sugar coated words or by brute force. But not always, it is to be stated that, it is only the male who misuse the women folk, but in the legal conundrum, vicious persons belonging to the female folk, do misuse the law to their advantage and, therefore, in cases of such nature, the duty cast on the court is two-fold, not only to see that women are not misused but equally, the law is not misused against the male folk as well”.

The background of the case was that Rahul had forced the woman he loved to have sexual intercourse under the pretext of the marriage.

It is noted by the bench that, when the alleged incident took place Rahul was already married and the same was known to the victim.

The bench noted that the victim’s testimony of Rahul having sexually assaulted her under the pretext of marriage was deemed unsustainable.

The bench further said that the misconception of marriage did not fall under the present case as the victim was already aware of the existing marriage.

Hence, the bench allowed Rahul’s appeal.