Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Munja s/o Jijabhau Bhange, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from an incident on 09.08.2011, when the victim, a woman above 18 years, alleged that the appellant approached her, offered to marry her, and took her to a mal near a water tank where he forcibly had intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. She later accompanied him to Sailu and Nashik, staying for two days, and returned on 12.08.2011. She lodged an FIR on 13.08.2011, leading to the registration of Crime No. 96/2011 at Bori Police Station. The trial court convicted the appellant only under Section 376 IPC, acquitting him of other charges under Sections 363, 366-A, and 506 IPC. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim was an adult, there was a delay of five days in lodging the FIR, and her testimony contained inconsistencies. The court observed that the victim left her home voluntarily and stayed with the appellant for several days without raising any alarm, which indicated consent. The court also noted that the promise of marriage, even if broken, does not automatically make the intercourse rape unless the promise was false from the beginning. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had no intention to marry at the time of the promise. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal - The appellant was convicted for rape based on allegation of forcible intercourse on promise of marriage. The High Court held that the victim being above 18 years, leaving home voluntarily, and delay in FIR coupled with inconsistencies in her testimony created doubt about absence of consent. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Delay in FIR - Credibility - The FIR was lodged after 5 days of the incident. The court noted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the victim's conduct of staying with the accused for days without resistance indicated consent. (Paras 2-5) C) Criminal Law - Promise of Marriage - Rape - The court observed that a promise to marry, if broken, does not automatically vitiate consent unless the promise was false from inception. Here, there was no evidence to show that the accused had no intention to marry at the time of promise. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable when the victim was an adult, there was delay in lodging FIR, and the evidence suggests consensual relationship on promise of marriage.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Consent
- Promise of Marriage
- Rape
- Section 376 IPC
- Delay in FIR
- Age of Victim
- Inconsistencies in Testimony
