8 July 2025 Legal Updates

'CLEAR CASE OF CONSENT': GUJARAT HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RAPE ACQUITTAL, SAYS VICTIM 'REMAINED SILENT' UNTIL ADVANCED STAGE OF PREGNANCY

(a) Case Title:

• State of Gujarat v. Anilbhai Babubhai Dudhat

(b) Court:

• High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 30, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas

Background:

This was an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the accused in a rape case. The trial court had acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 452 (house trespass), 376 (rape), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Facts:

The complainant was an 18-year-old woman who alleged that the accused, a neighbour, trespassed into her house when she was alone and raped her. She claimed this happened repeatedly over time, resulting in pregnancy. She only reported the incident when she was 7-8 months pregnant. The accused claimed they were in a consensual relationship and produced joint photographs as evidence

Court's Reasoning:

1. Lack of Medical Evidence:

• No medical evidence supported forced sexual intercourse

2. Delay in Reporting:

• The victim's silence for months, even after becoming pregnant, was considered inconsistent with rape

3. Conduct Analysis:

• The court found her behavior suggested consensual relations rather than rape

4. Medical Testimony:

• The examining doctor testified that she was "habituated to sexual intercourse"

5. Subsequent Marriage:

• The victim had married another person by the time of trial

6. Judgment:

• The High Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal. The court concluded that no offense under Section 376 (rape) or related sections was established from the facts and circumstances.

Key Legal Principles for CLAT:

1. Consent in Sexual Offenses:

• The case demonstrates how courts analyze consent based on victim's conduct and circumstances

2. Burden of Proof:

• The prosecution must prove rape beyond reasonable doubt with supporting evidence

3. Delay in Reporting:

• While delay doesn't automatically invalidate a rape case, courts consider it along with other circumstances

4. Medical Evidence:

• Medical examination plays a crucial role in sexual offense cases

HUSBAND CAN'T BE ASKED TO PAY INSTALLMENTS FOR UNDER-CONSTRUCTION FLAT UNDER DV ACT, NOT 'SHARED HOUSEHOLD': BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Srinwati Mukherji v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay

(c) Date of Decision:

• 4th July, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Facts

The Petitioner, Srinwati Mukherji, wife married Prateek Thukral, the respondent husband working as Senior Software Development Engineer at Amazon Luna, Seattle in the year 2013. They initially lived in Thane in a rented accommodation. The husband shifted to USA in 2019, and engaged in adulterous relationship. In 2020, husband returned and promised to settle in Mumbai permanently. As gesture of commitment, husband executed Agreement for Sale for a flat in Malad West, Mumbai worth ₹3.52 crores (with ₹3.24 crore loan from HDFC Bank). The husband returned to USA in March 2020. The Wife filed domestic violence complaint in May 2022 due to husband's threatening behaviour. The husband stopped paying rent after DV complaint was filed. The wife was forced to sell her car and vacate rented premises in February 2024.

Legal Issues

• Whether a flat that is still under construction and not in possession of either party can be considered a "Shared Household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Wife's Arguments:

Flat should be considered "Shared Household" under Section 2(s) of DV Act and She has right to reside in the property as co-owner. The husband should be directed to pay remaining instalments under Section 19(d) and (e)

Husband's Arguments:

Property doesn't qualify as "Shared Household" as neither party has ever resided there. The actual residence at some point is necessary for Section 2(s) to apply. The property is under construction and not in possession of either party.

Court's Decision

Petition dismissed

Key Reasoning:

1. Definition of "Shared Household":

• Under Section 2(s) of DV Act, a shared household means a household where the aggrieved person "lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship"

2. Actual Residence Requirement:

• The words "lives or at any stage has lived" require actual residence at some point by either the aggrieved person or respondent

3. Property Status:

• The flat in question is still under construction and not in habitable condition. The possession was not handed over to either party and neither party has ever resided there.

Scope of Protection:

Section 19 of DV Act provides protection from eviction from existing shared households, not direction to complete property transactions

Legal Principles Established

1. "Shared Household" Definition:

• Must involve actual residence by the parties at some point in time, not merely future intention to reside

2. Constructive Residence:

• While the concept exists, it applies to existing households where actual residence has occurred, not future properties

3. Scope of DV Act:

• The Act protects against eviction from existing shared households but cannot be used to compel completion of property transactions

4. Social Welfare Legislation:

• DV Act is meant to provide immediate protection to victims, not to enforce property rights in incomplete transactions