Justice Pratibha Rani made the observation while rejecting the plea of a 29-year-old woman, who has recently filed a domestic violence case against her husband, seeking his prosecution in the rape case lodged by her before marrying the man in 2015.
The woman had moved the high court challenging the trial court's March 2016 order acquitting him.
"This court had observed on number of occasions that the number of cases where both persons, out of their own will and choice, develop consensual physical relationship, when the relationship breaks up due to some reason, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta.
"They tend to convert such consensual acts as an incidents of rape may be out of anger and frustration thereby defeating the very purpose of the provision. This requires a clear demarcation between the rape and consensual sex especially in the case where complaint is that consent had been given on promise of marriage," the court observed.
He was let off by the trial court as the woman, who had alleged that she was raped after being made to consume a sedative-laced drink, turned hostile before the lower court.
Initially, after lodging of the rape case, she, along with the man, had moved the high court and subsequently the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that they wished to get married.
However, both the courts rejected their plea and asked them to face the trial, during which the woman did not make any incriminating statement against him.
"Since in a case under Sections 376 (rape) and 328 (poisoning) of the IPC, to prove the factum of alleged sexual assault, she is the only star witness and she preferred not to support the case of the prosecution, the trial court was justified in closing the evidence and acquitting the accused," the high court noted.
The judge said that under these circumstances, "the court had hardly any option, but to acquit the accused".