<p>The Supreme Court has let off a Scheduled Tribe man, who was accused of raping a Christian girl on the false promise of marriage.</p>.<p>It said both were "smitten by each other and passions of youth ruled over their minds and emotions as the physical relations that followed between them was not isolated or sporadic in nature, but regular over the years".</p>.<p>A bench of Justices R F Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee noted the woman, a Christian, was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship with a man belonging to Scheduled Tribe.</p>.<p>An engagement ceremony was also held in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be overcome, but unfortunately differences arose over whether the marriage was to be solemnised in a church or a temple and ultimately failed, the court said, as it acquitted Maheshwar Tigga of rape case lodged in April 1999.</p>.<p>"We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent of the woman was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial, because of her deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said the appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to the establishment of the physical relationship between the parties.</p>.<p>The man, convicted and sentenced to seven years in jail, contended that the FIR was lodged belatedly after four years as an afterthought. He claimed the physical relations between the appellant and the woman were consensual in nature occasioned by their love affair.</p>.<p>Discarding the state's contention that she was minor and her consent did not matter, the court pointed out that the woman had dithered about her age in the deposition.</p>.<p>It further said the nature and manner of allegations, coupled with the letters exchanged between them made it apparent that their love for each other grew and matured over sufficient time. She had even gone and resided in the house of the appellant.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out the delay of four years in lodging of the FIR, just seven days before the man solemnising his marriage with another girl, raised serious doubts about the truth and veracity of the allegations.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has let off a Scheduled Tribe man, who was accused of raping a Christian girl on the false promise of marriage.</p>.<p>It said both were "smitten by each other and passions of youth ruled over their minds and emotions as the physical relations that followed between them was not isolated or sporadic in nature, but regular over the years".</p>.<p>A bench of Justices R F Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee noted the woman, a Christian, was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship with a man belonging to Scheduled Tribe.</p>.<p>An engagement ceremony was also held in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be overcome, but unfortunately differences arose over whether the marriage was to be solemnised in a church or a temple and ultimately failed, the court said, as it acquitted Maheshwar Tigga of rape case lodged in April 1999.</p>.<p>"We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent of the woman was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial, because of her deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court said the appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to the establishment of the physical relationship between the parties.</p>.<p>The man, convicted and sentenced to seven years in jail, contended that the FIR was lodged belatedly after four years as an afterthought. He claimed the physical relations between the appellant and the woman were consensual in nature occasioned by their love affair.</p>.<p>Discarding the state's contention that she was minor and her consent did not matter, the court pointed out that the woman had dithered about her age in the deposition.</p>.<p>It further said the nature and manner of allegations, coupled with the letters exchanged between them made it apparent that their love for each other grew and matured over sufficient time. She had even gone and resided in the house of the appellant.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out the delay of four years in lodging of the FIR, just seven days before the man solemnising his marriage with another girl, raised serious doubts about the truth and veracity of the allegations.</p>
