Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Pravin @ Shrikrishna Chandrakant Marathe, was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, for offences under Sections 376, 451, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly raping a minor girl, Kumari Sangita Gunaji Khandare, on multiple occasions in March 1996. The victim was 14 years old at the time, studying in 7th standard. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered her house when she was alone, embraced her, promised to marry her, and committed sexual intercourse. Similar incidents occurred thereafter, and when the victim became pregnant, the matter came to light. The accused was arrested and charged. The trial court convicted him, and the appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed. The accused then filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and the conduct of the parties. The court noted that the victim's testimony was contradictory and unreliable; she admitted to having a love affair and consensual relationship with the accused. The medical evidence showed that the victim was pregnant, but the DNA test was not conducted to establish paternity. The court also observed that the victim did not raise any alarm or disclose the incidents for several months, and her conduct indicated consent. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had no intention to marry from the beginning, and the sexual intercourse was consensual. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Section 375, 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The issue was whether sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage constitutes rape when the promise is broken later. The court held that if the promise was not false from the inception and the victim consented freely, it does not amount to rape. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had no intention to marry at the time of the act. (Paras 10-25) B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Victim - Corroboration - Section 157 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that the testimony of the victim in a rape case must be scrutinized with care and if it is found to be contradictory and unreliable, conviction cannot be based solely on it. The victim's conduct and delay in reporting were inconsistent with a genuine complaint. (Paras 15-30) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Reappreciation of Evidence - Section 374, 386 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court in revision can reappreciate evidence to correct a grave miscarriage of justice. The trial court and appellate court had erred in convicting the accused without properly appreciating the evidence of consent. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim was consensual or amounted to rape under Section 376 IPC, and whether the conviction by the trial court and confirmation by the appellate court were sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicant of all charges.
Law Points
- Consent obtained under promise of marriage may not vitiate consent if the promise is not false from inception
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish absence of consent
- Section 375 IPC requires proof of sexual intercourse without consent or with consent obtained by fear or false promise
- Delay in FIR filing not fatal if satisfactorily explained
- Testimony of victim in rape cases must be scrutinized with care
