The High Court of Delhi has acquitted a man convicted of rape, setting aside a trial court’s judgment by holding that the prosecutrix, being a major, was aware of the man’s existing marriage and had “consciously consented” to the physical relationship. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that her consent was not obtained under a “misconception of fact” based on a false promise of marriage, and therefore, the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged on September 11, 2004, by the prosecutrix’s father (PW-4). According to the prosecution, his daughter, aged about 18-19 years, went missing from their residence in Sadat Pur Extension, Delhi, on the night of September 2, 2004. The appellant, a resident of the same locality who frequented the family’s STD booth run by the prosecutrix, was also found missing simultaneously.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant enticed the prosecutrix and took her to various places, including Balaji, Jaipur, Sonepat, Chandigarh, and Kangra in Himachal Pradesh. During this period, he allegedly established sexual relations with her repeatedly under the threat of killing her brother and on the false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix lived with the appellant for nearly six months, even assisting him in his cane furniture work in Kangra, before discovering he was already married with six children.
On March 5, 2005, the appellant and the prosecutrix were apprehended at Sarai Kale Khan ISBT, Delhi. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 365, 366, and 376 of the IPC. The trial court framed charges under Sections 366 (kidnapping a woman to compel her marriage, etc.) and 376 (rape) of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, in a judgment dated January 9, 2008, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 366 IPC but convicted him under Section 376 IPC. He was subsequently sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The present appeal was filed against this conviction and sentence.
Arguments Before the High Court
The learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Stuti Gujral, assisted by Mr. Miran Ahmad and Mr. Vipin Kumar, argued that the trial court’s judgment was based on “surmises and conjectures.” It was contended that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3), who was a major at the time and had accompanied the appellant with her free consent. The counsel asserted that since the prosecutrix was aware that the appellant was a married man, the allegation of physical relations based on a false promise of marriage could not be sustained in law, as it did not amount to a “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the IPC.
Conversely, the learned APP for the State, Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, and the counsel for the prosecutrix, Ms. Sana Juneja, Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Mr. A. Sahitya Veena, and Mr. Deepshikha, argued that the trial court’s decision was well-reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, which proved the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta centered the analysis on whether the prosecutrix’s consent was voluntary or obtained under a misconception of fact. The Court first established from the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father that she was over 18 years of age at the time of the incident.
The judgment highlighted “material contradictory statements” in the testimony of the prosecutrix. In her examination-in-chief, she claimed the appellant had taken her “forcibly” and threatened to kill her brother. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that “the appellant took her everywhere with her consent.”
Crucially, while she initially stated that she came to know “later on” that the appellant was married, her cross-examination revealed otherwise. She deposed that the appellant’s wife had visited their shop a week before she left with him and that she “had come to know of their presence before going away with him.” The Court observed, “This clearly shows that PW-3 was aware of the fact that the appellant was already married prior to the alleged incident.”
Due to these contradictions, the Court concluded that “PW-3 has not spoken the exact truth regarding the alleged incident and it affects the case of the prosecution on merits.”
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Uday v. State of Karnataka, which noted that “the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.”
The High Court noted that the prosecutrix had known the appellant for a year, stayed with him for six months, and even assisted him in his work “for living happily.” These facts, the Court found, demonstrated her full awareness of her actions. The judgment stated, “The fact that the prosecutrix continued to live with the appellant for a period of six months… clearly demonstrates that she was fully aware of the consequences of her acts, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that the marriage with the appellant was not possible. Thus, the alleged element of inducement on the pretext of marriage by the appellant is manifestly absent.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the rape charge. “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances proved on record, it is evident that the prosecutrix had consciously consented for having physical relations with the appellant and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact, i.e. on account of false promise of marriage,” Justice Gupta held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court’s judgment and sentence were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.
