Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence of rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment. The case arose from a complaint by the prosecutrix that the appellant had sexual relations with her on the false promise of marriage between 13-4-2004 and 5-10-2006, and also committed an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as he did not belong to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecutrix was a mature woman who continued the relationship over a long period, and the promise of marriage was not the sole basis for her consent. The court noted significant delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in her testimony, which made her version unreliable. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Section 376(1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Consent - The issue was whether the appellant's conviction for rape under Section 376(1) IPC was sustainable when the prosecutrix alleged that her consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage. The court held that the prosecutrix was a mature woman who continued the relationship over two years, and the promise of marriage was not the sole basis for consent. The delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in her testimony rendered her version unreliable. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Delay in FIR - Credibility of Prosecutrix - Section 157 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court considered the effect of delay in lodging the FIR in a sexual offence case. It held that while delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained, in this case the explanation was not convincing, and the delay coupled with other inconsistencies weakened the prosecution case. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Law - Atrocities Act - Sections 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The appellant was also charged under the Atrocities Act for committing rape on a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. However, the court did not specifically address this charge in the judgment as the conviction was only under Section 376(1) IPC. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC for rape based on a false promise of marriage is sustainable when the prosecutrix continued the relationship over a long period and the promise was not the sole basis for consent.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Consent obtained on false promise of marriage does not vitiate consent if the promise was not the sole basis for the relationship
- Delay in FIR in sexual offences is not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Testimony of prosecutrix must be corroborated if it is not wholly reliable
