New Delhi, April 4 (PTI): The Supreme Court has acquitted a man, who had sex with an 18-year-old girl after promising to marry her, of the charge of rape.

The court said it was “reasonably possible” that K.P. Thimmappa Gowda had the woman’s consent before entering into physical relations with her. It also noted that she was aged over 16 years, the legal age of consent in the country.

But the bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra asked Gowda to transfer within three months two acres of his land to the woman since he had married another woman in spite of his pledge.

“In the present case, the facts are that the victim herself stated in her evidence that she had sex with the appellant on several occasions. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR against the appellant was lodged just a few days before the birth of the victim’s child, which means there is a delay of over 8 months in lodging the FIR.

“The finding of the trial court, which has not been disturbed by the High Court, is that the victim was about 18 years of age at the relevant time. On these facts, a view is reasonably possible that the victim had sex with the appellant with her consent and hence there was no offence under Section 376 IPC (rape) because sex with a woman above 16 years of age with her consent is not rape,” Justice Katju said in the judgment.

The trial court had earlier acquitted Gowda but the high court reversed the judgment and sentenced him to seven years in prison, after which he appealed to the apex court.

The prosecution’s case was that on January 4, 1996, Gowda had raped the victim aged about 18 years and promised to marry her. Subsequently, he is alleged to have had sex with her on a number of occasions.

The victim became pregnant but Gowda refused to marry her, following which she lodged a complaint of rape against him a few days before she gave birth to a child.

Upholding Gowda’s appeal, the apex court said that in criminal cases, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

“If the court is of the opinion that on the evidence two views are reasonably possible, one that the appellant is guilty, and the other that he is innocent, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

“Apart from the above, the appellant has stated in an affidavit filed in this court that he has agreed to transfer two acres of land situated in Palavanahalli due to breach of promise to marry the victim and she has given her consent to accept the same,” the bench said.