Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Govind Shripat Maraskolhe, was convicted by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 56/2006 for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from an FIR lodged on 29.10.2004 by the victim's father (PW1) alleging kidnapping of his 14-year-old daughter. The victim was traced on 14.11.2004, and her statement revealed that the accused had enticed her with a promise of marriage and had sexual intercourse with her. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the victim's age was not conclusively proved; the school leaving certificate was not properly exhibited, and medical evidence estimated her age between 16-18 years. The victim's testimony showed she voluntarily accompanied the accused and had consensual sexual relations over a period. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and held that the prosecution failed to prove lack of consent or that the victim was below 16 years. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Age of Victim - Sections 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age below 16 years as the school leaving certificate was not duly proved and medical evidence suggested age around 16-18 years. The victim's testimony indicated she went willingly with the accused and had consensual sexual relations based on a promise of marriage. Held that the prosecution did not establish lack of consent or that the victim was below the age of consent, thus the conviction was set aside (Paras 2-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Enticement - Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The victim voluntarily accompanied the accused, and there was no evidence of force or inducement by the accused. The victim's own testimony showed she left her home of her own free will. Held that the offence of kidnapping was not made out (Paras 2-10). C) Criminal Law - Rape - Promise to Marry - Consent - Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - A promise to marry, if broken, does not necessarily vitiate consent unless the promise was false from the inception. In this case, the victim continued to stay with the accused and had sexual relations over a period, indicating consent. Held that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC, particularly whether the victim was below 16 years of age and whether the sexual intercourse was without her consent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Consent in sexual offences
- Age determination in rape cases
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
- Promise to marry as consent
