Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appellant's revision against the framing of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant, a friend of her younger brother, took private photographs of her while she was changing clothes and later blackmailed her into a physical relationship by threatening to upload the photos on social media. She claimed that the appellant forced her to travel to Gwalior where he committed rape on her in his rented premises. The appellant also allegedly obtained her signature on an affidavit stating she would live with him for life, and later demanded Rs. 15 lakhs for marriage. The FIR was lodged on 06.09.2018, and after investigation, chargesheet was filed. The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 24.04.2019, holding that prima facie evidence existed. The High Court dismissed the revision on 03.10.2019. The Supreme Court considered the arguments: the appellant claimed the relationship was consensual, while the respondents argued that consent was obtained under misconception of fact (false promise of marriage) and coercion (threat of defamation). The Court held that at the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case is required, and the materials on record, including the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC, supported the charges. The Court noted that consent based on a false promise of marriage or under fear of defamation is not valid consent and constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC. The Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the trial to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - False Promise of Marriage - Section 375, 376(2)(n) IPC - Consent obtained on false promise of marriage is consent under misconception of fact and does not amount to valid consent - The court held that inducing a woman to have sexual relationship on the basis of false promise of marriage would be rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC (Paras 9.1, 10.1). B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charges - Prima Facie Case - Section 227, 228 CrPC - At the stage of framing charge, court is required to take a prima facie view based on materials on record - The court held that trial court found sufficient material to frame charge and High Court found no merit in revision, thus no interference warranted (Paras 5, 6, 9.1). C) Criminal Law - Rape - Coercion - Threat of Defamation - Section 375, 376 IPC - Compelling intercourse under fear of leaking private photographs vitiates consent - The court held that such consent is no consent at all and constitutes rape (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court and Sessions Judge erred in framing charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC against the appellant despite the relationship being allegedly consensual, and whether the appellant should be discharged at the stage of framing of charges.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sessions Judge and High Court correctly found a prima facie case for framing charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. The trial shall proceed.
Law Points
- Consent obtained under misconception of fact or fear of defamation is not valid consent
- Framing of charge requires only prima facie case
- False promise of marriage vitiates consent
- Section 375 IPC defines rape
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC covers repeated rape on same woman
