Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prathamesh Surendra Sohale, aged 24, was charged under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, based on a complaint lodged by the victim, aged 21, on 03.04.2021 at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. The victim alleged that the appellant had sexual relations with her on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her. The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was rejected by the trial court on 03.08.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 14A of the Atrocities Act. The High Court examined the material on record, including WhatsApp chats and the victim's statement, and found that the relationship was consensual and that the appellant had initially agreed to marry but later changed his mind due to family opposition. The court distinguished between a mere breach of promise and a false promise made from inception, holding that the consent was not vitiated as the promise was not false at the time it was made. The court also noted that the appellant and victim belonged to the same caste, and thus the provisions of the Atrocities Act were not attracted. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and discharged the appellant from all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent obtained on false promise of marriage - Distinction between mere breach of promise and false promise from inception - The court examined whether the accused had a fraudulent intention from the beginning or whether there was a subsequent change of circumstances leading to breach of promise. Held that if the promise was not false from inception, the consent is not vitiated and no offence of rape is made out (Paras 2, 5-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Scope of court's power at framing of charge - The court has to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made out. If the material gives rise to strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, charge must be framed; otherwise, discharge is warranted (Paras 4-5). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(5) - Applicability in cases of consensual relationship - The court held that where the relationship is consensual and the accused does not belong to a different caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted. The mere fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste does not automatically bring the case under the Act (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/accused is entitled to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the ground that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order dated 03.08.2022, and discharged the appellant from all charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.
Law Points
- Consent obtained on false promise of marriage constitutes rape only if promise was false from inception
- mere breach of promise does not amount to rape
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC
- Section 3(1)(w)(i) SC/ST Act
- Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act
- Section 227 CrPC
- discharge at framing of charge
