The North Goa Special Fast Track Court has ordered the framing of charges against 22-year-old Pushpender Rathi for rape and cheating. Rathi, an established boxer from Faridabad, Haryana, allegedly sexually assaulted a medical student on the false pretext of marriage and also cheated her financially.

According to the prosecution, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant on multiple occasions between October 10, 2021, and March 11, 2023, at a hotel in Porvorim. At the time, the victim was a 19-year-old MBBS student, while the accused was an established boxer.

The victim’s supplementary statement revealed that she initially rejected the accused’s advances. However, he allegedly insisted that he loved her, would never leave her, and would marry her after she completed her medical degree. He further pressured her, saying she needed to prove her love by entering into a physical relationship, following which she consented. In 2023, the accused refused to marry her.

The accused also faces a charge of cheating. The complainant alleged that Rathi borrowed money from her on several occasions, with a total of Rs 75,000 transferred to his account.
During the hearing on the framing of charges, the defence argued that the two-year relationship was consensual. It contended that the victim was an adult who understood the consequences of her actions, and that a two-year sexual relationship could not be based solely on a promise to marry.

The defence cited judicial precedents in which courts discharged accused persons because the relationships were consensual or because the complainants were already married. Counsel for the accused also argued that Rathi either denied borrowing the money or had returned it.

The court rejected the defence’s arguments and distinguished the cited precedents from the present case. It observed that, unlike some of the cited judgments, both parties in this case were unmarried. The court further noted that there was a direct prima facie nexus between the accused’s promise to marry and the victim’s consent, as she categorically stated that she had agreed only because of his representation.

The court emphasised that the matter is at a preliminary stage. At the stage of framing charges, the complainant’s version must be accepted as true, and the defence’s claims—including its financial defence—cannot be evaluated or inferred. Finding no grounds to discharge the accused, the court has ordered that charges be formally framed.