Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J., allowed pre-arrest bail to the applicant accused of raping a women whom he allegedly met on facebook.

Accused preferred a pre-arrest bail application for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code, 1860.

Petitioner and informant were in a relationship for 1.5 years and petitioner had promised to marry the informant.

When informant had reached Kozikhode for purchasing some clothes for their marriage, she was taken to a lodge, where both petitioner and informant stayed together and informant was subjected to penetrative sexual abuse.

Petitioner also took some pictures of the informant and threatened with the same to obtain a sum of Rs 40,000 and gold chain.

Decision

Bench noted that according to the de facto complainant, she was in a relationship with the petitioner.

Court relied on the Supreme Court case of Dr Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 (1) KHC 403] wherein it was held that there is a distinction between rape and consensual sex.

Bench stated in the present matter that the question to be considered is:

Whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to that effect only to satisfy his lust?

“…former is not rape but the latter will fall within the ambit of cheating and deception.”

Distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise

Further Court also observed that,

if the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, then such consent cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.

Thus, in view of the above, Court’s opinion was that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessitous for an effective investigation.

Hence, the present application was allowed with certain conditions. [Shanil v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2625 , decided on 06-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bhakru, J. while disposing of the petition upheld the decision of the trial court on finding no infirmity in its decision.

The present petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge.

Background

FIR was lodged pursuant to a complaint filed by Ms ‘P’ and the proceedings for the same commenced under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Ms ‘P’ stated that she had developed a friendship with the accused in the year 2013 and over a span of two years the same transformed into a love affair. She had been meeting the accused regularly and he had promised to marry her.

On one occasion, the accused had invited Ms ‘P’ to his house to meet his mother and later, the respondent bolted the door and raped her despite her resistance. However, he had also promised to marry her and had asked her not to disclose the said incident. Further, the allegations placed by Ms ‘P’ were that the respondent had taken her to a hotel and had thereafter, raped her. Although he had promised to marry her, he had resiled from his promise.

After the above incidents, Ms ‘P’ approached the police statement and got her statement recorded, though she declined to get an internal medical examination.

Court’s Observation and Analysis

Fact that the respondent established a physical relationship cannot be disputed. Ms ‘P’ checked into the hotel with the respondent and checked out from the same next morning, clearly shows that they both had booked the hotel for physical intimacy.

Trial Court rightly observed that the only question to be considered was whether Ms P had consented for the physical relationship under a false promise of marriage.

High Court noted that accused had evinced his intention to marry Ms ‘P’ more than two years before the alleged incident of the accused establishing a physical relationship with her. Further, the Court stated that, Ms P’s testimony that she had objected to the accused touching her obscenely but had yielded on him promising marriage, is difficult to accept.

The only reservation of the High Court to the conclusion of trial court was that the implicit assumption that the accused was not on trial for not marrying Ms P. The accused was not trial for not marrying Ms P, but on an allegation of committing the offence of rape.

Another significant noting of the High Court was that,

“It is important to bear in mind that two consenting adults establishing a physical relationship, is not crime. Jilting a lover, however abhorrent that it may seem to some, is also not an offence punishable under the Penal Code, 1860.”

Prosecutrix in the present case claims that her consent was not voluntary but was obtained by inducing her on the pretext of a promise to marry. Plainly, this is not established in this case. Prosceutrix had three months after the first alleged incident of rape, voluntarily checked into a hotel with the accused. Clearly, this was a voluntary act; there is no merit in the contention that this act was induced by a promise of marriage.

Additionally, in view of the above, the Court also added that,

Inducement to have a physical relationship by promising marriage must have a clear nexus with the moment promise of marriage cannot be held out as an inducement for engaging in sex over a protracted and indefinite period of time.

In the present case, prosecutrix appears to have used the allegation of inducement of a physical relationship on the promise of marriage, to not only justify her physical relationship with the accused in the past, but also her conduct after the FIR was filed. In her testimony, she had explained that she had done so because the accused had contacted her and again reiterated his promise to get married to her.

Thus the petition in the above terms is accordingly dismissed. [State v. Sandeep, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10332, decided on 25-09-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: It is now from the last decade or two that it has become a matter of common parlance that women  lodge complaint against their paramour for raping on the pretext of promise to marry. Recently, the Kerala High Court too had a similar case to decide upon.  The accused was convicted under Section 376, IPC by the Sessions Court against which he had appealed in the High Court.

The case of prosecution was such that under a false promise of marriage, the accused enticed the prosecutrix, took her to a hotel at Ernakulam where he subjected her to sexual intercourse at a room with force, and thereafter again on three occasions at her residence also he subjected the lady to sexual intercourse on a promise that he would marry her. The stand of the appellant/accused remained that it was a false case registered against him in despair of love.

The Court examined the evidence on both the sides and came to the conclusion that whatever transpired between the prosecutrix and accused was purely consensual. It was clear that the lady and accused had intercourse many times at her residence. To this, the Court noted that the prosecutrix was a well-educated lady aged 27 years having a degree in Engineering and, it is unbelievable that such an educated lady could be deceived on a promise to marry on so many occasions. It held that it was a clear case of consent and a conviction under Section 376 IPC was not at all possible. The accused was accordingly acquitted. [Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 200 , decided on 13.01.2017]