Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the accused, Virendra Dinkarrao Pilondre, challenging the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur, rejecting his application for discharge in Crime No. 208/2010. The crime was registered on the report of the prosecutrix on 18.07.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 496, 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). The prosecutrix alleged that the accused, who was her friend, proposed marriage through a common friend, but she refused due to age and caste differences. However, in 2001, the accused took her to a temple, applied vermilion on her forehead, and declared them married, promising to marry her after getting employment. She alleged that the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her in December 2000 and subsequently on multiple occasions under the promise of marriage. The prosecutrix was selected as a Police Sub Inspector in 2005, and the accused was selected in 2009. The accused filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the promise of marriage was not false from the beginning. The learned Special Judge rejected the application, leading to the revision. The High Court analyzed the material on record, including the statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses. The court noted that the prosecutrix was an educated woman who continued the relationship for several years despite knowing the accused's caste and age. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the promise of marriage was false at the time it was made. The court also held that the ingredients of Sections 493, 496, and 417 IPC were not made out, as there was no deceitful cohabitation, no fraudulent marriage ceremony, and no cheating. Regarding the Atrocities Act, the court held that the prosecutrix's own statement indicated that the accused knew her caste, but the relationship was consensual and continued for years, and there was no material to show that the accused committed sexual intercourse knowing her caste with intent to humiliate. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Special Judge, and discharged the accused from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Promise of Marriage - Consent - Discharge - The court considered whether the accused could be discharged when the prosecutrix alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, which he later failed to fulfill. The court held that if the promise was not false from the inception and the relationship continued for a long period, the consent may not be vitiated. The court found that the prosecutrix was an educated woman and continued the relationship despite knowing the accused's caste and age difference, and there was no material to show that the promise was false at the time it was made. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Offence under Section 493 IPC - Cohabitation by Deceit - Ingredients - The court examined whether the accused induced the prosecutrix to believe that they were lawfully married. The court held that the prosecutrix knew that no valid marriage had taken place and that the application of vermilion at a temple did not constitute a valid marriage. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 493 IPC were not made out. (Paras 21-25) C) Criminal Law - Offence under Section 496 IPC - Marriage Ceremony Fraudulently Gone Through - The court held that there was no evidence that the accused went through a marriage ceremony with the prosecutrix. The mere application of vermilion at a temple without any ceremony does not attract Section 496 IPC. (Paras 26-28) D) Criminal Law - Offence under Section 417 IPC - Cheating - The court held that for an offence of cheating, there must be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement. Since the promise of marriage was not shown to be false at the inception, the offence of cheating is not made out. (Paras 29-31) E) Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xii) - The court held that the allegation of sexual intercourse with a member of a Scheduled Caste knowing that she belongs to such caste requires that the accused had knowledge of her caste. The court found that the prosecutrix herself stated that the accused knew her caste, but the relationship was consensual and continued for years. The court held that the ingredients of the offence under the Atrocities Act were not made out. (Paras 32-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the prosecutrix's consent was based on a promise of marriage that was allegedly false from the beginning, and whether the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376, 493, 496, 417 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Atrocities Act are made out.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur, and discharged the applicant/accused from all offences in Crime No. 208/2010.
Law Points
- Promise of marriage
- rape
- false promise
- consent
- discharge
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 493 IPC
- Section 496 IPC
- Section 417 IPC
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Section 3(1)(xii)
