Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Clinton Fernandes challenging an order of the Sessions Judge, Goa, dated 25/08/2023, which rejected his discharge application and directed framing of charges under Sections 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship, and the victim became pregnant. Both parties mutually decided to abort the pregnancy, and the victim gave her consent for the procedure. Subsequently, the victim filed a complaint alleging rape on the ground that the applicant had promised to marry her but later refused. The applicant argued that the relationship was consensual, there was no false promise to marry from the inception, and the abortion was with the victim's consent. The court examined the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and found that the victim consistently stated that the applicant had promised to marry her and that she consented to the relationship based on that promise. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to show that the promise was false at the time it was made. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the inception with an intention to deceive. The court also found that the abortion was with the victim's consent, as she accompanied the applicant to the doctor and gave her consent. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 313 and 201 IPC were not made out. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and discharged the applicant from all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Promise to Marry - Section 376 IPC - Consent given under a promise to marry is not vitiated unless the promise was false from the inception with an intention to deceive - The court held that a mere breach of promise cannot constitute rape; there must be evidence of a false promise made with fraudulent intent at the time of the initial act (Paras 9-12). B) Criminal Law - Abortion - Consent - Section 313 IPC - Abortion caused with the consent of the woman does not attract Section 313 IPC - The court held that since the victim voluntarily consented to the abortion, the ingredients of Section 313 are not made out (Para 13). C) Criminal Law - Destruction of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - No offence under Section 201 IPC if the main offence is not established - The court held that since no offence under Sections 376 or 313 IPC is made out, the charge under Section 201 IPC also fails (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant/accused can be discharged for offences under Sections 376, 313, and 201 IPC when the relationship was consensual and there was no false promise to marry from the inception.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 25/08/2023, and discharged the applicant from all charges under Sections 376, 313, and 201 IPC.
Law Points
- Consent based on promise to marry is not vitiated if promise was not false from inception
- Breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape
- Ingredients of Section 376 IPC require initial intent to deceive
- Abortion with consent does not attract Section 313 IPC
- No criminal conspiracy for destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC if no offence committed
