The Madhya Pradesh High Court has suspended the jail sentence of a woman convicted for allegedly giving contradictory statements in a rape case against her interfaith partner. The court noted that the couple later married voluntarily, are living together with their two children, and have no family support.Justice Jai Kumar Pillai was dealing with a plea of a woman challenging her conviction for giving false statements and evidence in an alleged rape case against the man with whome later she married. In the alleged rape case trial, the woman testified that she filed a rape case under pressure from the family due to their interfaith relationship.“The fact that upon the complaint of petitioner, the man was acquitted from the charges and now they both are married and are living as ‘husband and wife’ with two children, the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, considering the nature of offence, the fact that jail sentence of the petiitoner had already been suspended by the trial court till August 22 and the fact conclusion of final hearing of the appeal would take a considerable long time, therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this court deem fit to allow the application,” the court said on August 17.Also Read | Denied inter-caste marriage, not rape: Calcutta High Court upheld man’s acquittalThe court directed that the execution of the remaining jail sentence passed against the petitioner shall remain suspended, and she be released on bail.Case of Interfaith couple and rape trialA woman of one faith and a man of another had entered into a relationship and intended to marry. The couple left their homes voluntarily but faced strong opposition from their respective families and immense social pressure because of their interfaith relationship. On May 21, 2018, the woman lodged a complaint against the man alleging a false promise of marriage, leading to a rape case under Sections 376 and 376(2)(N) IPC. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai heard the matter on August 17.During the trial, however, the woman testified that she had voluntarily gone with the man, lived with him, and intended to marry him. She did not support the prosecution allegations regarding rape. Other prosecution witnesses also failed to support the case, and the man was acquitted. After that, the trial court directed that a complaint be filed against the woman for allegedly making contradictory statements.The woman was later convicted under Sections 182 (false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person) and 193 (punishment for false evidence) IPC and sentenced to one month and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.Story continues below this adMeanwhile, she and the man married voluntarily and are now living together with their two minor children, without support from either family because of their inter-faith marriage.Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Pooja Sharma submitted that the conviction and jail sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant are bad in law. It was further argued that the petitioner has every hope of success in this appeal. The final hearing of this appeal is likely to take a long time; hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the petitioner on bail.Couple married of their own free will: OrderThe court noted that the man was acquitted of the charges arising from the woman’s complaint, and that the couple subsequently married of their own free will. The court took into account that the woman and the man are presently living together as husband and wife and have two minor children, with the woman looking after their upbringing and family responsibilities.It also noted that, because of their inter-faith marriage, the couple did not have the support of either family. The court considered the woman’s lack of criminal antecedents, the nature of the offences, and the fact that her jail sentence had already been suspended by the trial court until August 22, 2026.Story continues below this adWithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, the court observed that its final hearing would take considerable time and therefore found it appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence and grant bail.