False charges of rape
The Apex Court in Sonu v. State of U.P. quashed an FIR u/s 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape: Proposed Section 64 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) between former lovers on the ground that “there is no allegation that the promise to marry given to the second respondent (prosecutrix) was false at the inception”.
In another case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court laid down as a litmus test to govern such matters: That a promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker when the promise was made was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman convincing her to engage in sexual relations, then it shall be considered as “misconception of fact”.
Relevance of consent
That the “consent” of a woman to make an offence u/s 375 (Rape: Proposed Section 63 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. The promise of marriage must have been false, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was provided.
Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161, held that “We cannot ignore the social circumstances of the parties. The lack of consent has to be stated by the prosecutrix. The victim and accused were in a love relationship for more than ten years. The sexual act referred to only occurred just before the preparation for the marriage was made. The prosecution evidence itself would show that there was resistance from the parents of the accused to accept the marriage without dowry. In the absence of any other evidence on the side of the prosecution, the conduct of the accused can only be treated as a breach of promise”.
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) lodged against a man who was accused of rape on the promise of marriage by his would-be wife after noting that the couple had settled their disputes and were living happily [AK v. State & Ors].
Chinnapandi v. State, Crl.A.(MD)No.211 of 2016: A case analysis
The High Court of Madras held that “The non-raising the resistance at the time of committing the sexual assault as from first time by the accused, it amounts to pre-consent. Accordingly, the consent given by the victim girl, cannot be held as a misconception of fact”.
The Madras High Court Justice R. Pongiappan was hearing an appeal filed to set aside the conviction of the accused u/s 376 (Punishment for Rape: Proposed Section 64 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) who promised to marry the victim but didn’t marry her.
Facts of the case
‘X’, the accused, and ‘Y’, the prosecutrix, were from the same village, and they fell in love and used to meet daily. ‘Y’ asked ‘X’ to marry her, but ‘X’ made a demand from ‘Y’ to establish a sexual relationship with him.
‘Y’ said that ‘X’ forced himself on her and committed sexual assault on her, and she became pregnant. Later, when ‘Y’ requested ‘X’ to marry her, he refused the proposal and asked her to abort the fetus.
‘X’ refused to marry ‘Y’, and hence a complaint was lodged against him; the trial started, and the Additional Session Judge, Madurai, held ‘X’ guilty for the offence of rape u/s 376 of I.P.C (Punishment for Rape: Proposed Section 64 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and ‘X’ was convicted.
Court’s observations
The Court noted that ‘Y’ complained about the act 2.5 months after the incident occurred, and ‘Y’ said before the Court that there was a relationship between ‘X’ and ‘Y’.
It was noted by the Court that ‘Y’ herself accepted that there was a love affair between ‘X and Y’ and that they had been meeting regularly. She filed a complaint after a long time when ‘X’ did not marry her as he promised. Hence, here, the contention is not that ‘X’ had sexually assaulted her, but it is that ‘X’ did not fulfil his promise of marrying her.
The Court further noted that only after X’s promise did ‘Y’ continue her relationship with him. The evidence did not indicate that the appellant had given any definite date or timeline for marrying her. Eventually, ‘Y’ conceived and insisted that the marriage should be performed soon, and that is when the appellant suggested abortion. That the proposal was not accepted by ‘Y’, and ‘X’ disowned the promise; hence the instant case was registered. Therefore, the averments of ‘Y’ cannot be relied upon, and she cannot produce any relevant evidence supporting her claims.
Decision of the Court
The Court noted that the act of ‘Y’ reveals that she submitted herself to sensual pleasures to ‘X’ on the promise of marriage.
The Court further noted that on the date of occurrence of the offence, ‘X and Y’ both were major and nowhere was it found in the evidence that the appellant had given any definite date or timeline for marrying the prosecutrix.
The Court noted that on the date of occurrence, ‘X and Y’ were both significant, and there was no evidence that a fixed marriage date had been promised. ‘Y’ had complained about the issue that ‘X’ did not keep his promise, and the Court stated that “The said circumstances reveal the fact that during the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was also willing and the accused had also promised to marry her once after the completion of his brother’s marriage.”
It added, “Acting on such assurance, the prosecutrix started cohabiting with the accused, and the same continued for several months, during which time the accused spent most of the evening hours with her. Eventually, when she conceived and insisted that the marriage should be performed as quickly as possible, the appellant suggested abortion. Since the prosecutrix did not accept the proposal, the appellant disowned the promise and ultimately, the case has been registered”.
While acquitting ‘X’ the Court stated that “In the light of the above discussions and the reason that the evidence given by PW1 is attracted, in respect to the preparation of complaint as well as in respect to the evidence given by the Doctor, I had a doubt whether the prosecutrix has approached the Police is with full of truth or with false averment. The accused is entitled to avail the benefit now arises as above. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Mahila Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.366 of 2011, dated 18.05.2016, is set aside and the appellant/first accused is acquitted.”
The Court also expressed doubts about the victim’s complaint preparation and the doctor’s evidence. Therefore, allowing the Criminal Appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused were set aside, and the appellant/first accused was acquitted of all the charges.
Conclusion
Several laws protect women’s rights and ensure their liberty. But men have been constantly struggling, and they have to fight for their rights. Hence, the enactment of laws has relieved women but not men. Let’s look below, which shall clarify the contention that women have been misusing the favouring provisions.
Leave A Comment