In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of Rupchand Dilip Shende in a case of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court reiterated that a false promise of marriage that deceives a victim into sexual relations vitiates consent, thereby dismissing the accused’s appeal against his ten-year sentence imposed by the Special POCSO Court, Bhandara in Special Criminal Case No. 40/2019.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while pronouncing the judgment, emphasized that “where a promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise was never to abide by it, there exists a misconception of fact that vitiates consent.” The ruling strengthens the legal principle that misleading a victim into consenting to sexual intercourse through deceptive promises constitutes rape.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged by a 16-year-old girl at Bhandara Police Station on May 11, 2019, alleging that the accused had sexually exploited her on multiple occasions between October 2018 and May 2019 under the false pretense of marriage.
The victim, who worked at Komal Fruit Centre, became acquainted with the accused when he frequently visited the shop for business purposes. Over time, he coerced her into a sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage. When the victim later became pregnant and confronted the accused, he provided her with pills to terminate the pregnancy. However, the pills were ineffective, and she later gave birth to a child on August 21, 2019. Upon realizing that the accused had no intention of marrying her, the victim approached the police, leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution.
Legal Issues and Trial Findings
The accused was charged under Section 376(2)(h) of the IPC (rape of a minor) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault). The Special POCSO Court, Bhandara, convicted him on September 19, 2022, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including the victim, her mother, medical experts, and police officers. Key findings included:
– The victim’s age was established as 16 years at the time of the crime, based on her birth certificate (Exh. 118), school records, and medical examination.
– Medical and DNA evidence confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the victim’s child, corroborating her testimony.
– The court rejected the accused’s defense that the relationship was consensual, citing that a minor’s consent is immaterial under the POCSO Act.
– The accused’s argument that the victim had a “one-sided love affair” with him was deemed baseless, as the evidence demonstrated that the accused deliberately deceived the victim with a false promise of marriage.
Bombay High Court’s Key Observations
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court’s findings and reinforced several critical legal principles:
1. Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is not valid consent.
– The court relied on Section 90 of the IPC, which states that consent obtained through “misconception of fact” is not legally tenable.
– It cited Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that if an accused had no intention to marry the victim from the outset, but falsely promised marriage to obtain consent for sexual intercourse, it constitutes rape.
2. POCSO Act overrides the question of consent.
– The victim was 16 years old at the time of the crime, making any sexual relationship with her statutory rape under POCSO Act provisions.
– The court reiterated that even if the victim had voluntarily engaged in sexual relations, her consent is legally irrelevant as she was below 18 years of age.
3. DNA Evidence is conclusive proof.
– The forensic report established that the accused was the father of the victim’s child, corroborating her version of events.
– The court emphasized that DNA evidence plays a crucial role in confirming allegations of sexual assault.
Verdict
Concluding that the accused had misled the victim into sexual relations under a fraudulent promise of marriage, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in interfering with the trial court’s conviction. The ruling underscores the legal stance that misleading a minor into a sexual relationship under false promises is a grave offense with severe consequences.
