Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mallesh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Raichur, in Sessions Case No.79/2007 for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was related to the prosecutrix Lakshmi, had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, starting from 19.10.2006, and continued to do so until February 2007 when her parents returned from Pune. The prosecutrix lodged a complaint on 24.02.2007 after the appellant refused to marry her. The trial court convicted the appellant, leading to this appeal. The High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, heard the appeal. The court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix and the circumstances. The court noted that the prosecutrix was 19 years old at the time, and the appellant had expressed his love and intention to marry her. The prosecutrix continued to have sexual relations with the appellant over several months without any complaint, and the delay in filing the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The court held that the consent given by the prosecutrix was voluntary and not vitiated by a misconception of fact, as the appellant's promise to marry was not false from the beginning. The court distinguished cases where the promise was made with no intention to fulfill it. The court also noted that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or disclose the incidents to neighbors, and the neighbors who testified did not support the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Sections 375, 376, 90 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court considered whether sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage constitutes rape when the promise is not fulfilled. Held that consent given on a promise of marriage is not vitiated unless the promise was false from the inception and the accused had no intention to marry. In this case, the appellant expressed love and intention to marry, and the prosecutrix continued the relationship over several months, indicating voluntary consent. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted. (Paras 2-10) B) Evidence - Delay in Filing FIR - Credibility - The court noted that the complaint was lodged four months after the first incident, and the prosecutrix's explanation for delay was not convincing. The delay, coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or disclose the incident to neighbors, cast doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC is sustainable when the prosecutrix consented to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage, and whether such consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Consent under misconception of fact
- promise to marry
- rape
- Section 375 IPC
- Section 90 IPC
- Section 376 IPC
- acquittal
- voluntary consent
