Penal Code, 1860 - ss.375, 376 – Mere establishing of physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry – Will not amount to rape in every case:
Held: An offence under Section 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. [Para 14]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376 and 506 – Prosecutrix was in a consensual physical relationship with accused-appellant – No element of force or deceit in the relationship – Ingredients of offences u/ss.375/506 IPC not established:
Held: On facts, physical relationship between Appellant and Respondent no. 2-prosecutrix was consensual – Even if the case of the prosecutrix is accepted, there is no material on record to show that there was any dishonest inducement, or incitement on part of the Appellant – There is also no material on record, to establish an offence of criminal intimidation under section 506 IPC against the Appellant – In the eventuality of a fall-out or split between the parties, it cannot be said that the promise to marry was false, and the corresponding conduct dishonest – The prolonged period of the relationship, during which the sexual relations continued between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. [Para 15] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – Trial at the time of framing charge – Scope of revisional jurisdiction: Held: On facts, there was sufficient material on record for the Sessions Court to exercise powers under Section 227 of CrPC, and discharge the Appellant – At the time of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible and the Trial Court has to proceed with the material brought on record by the prosecution and determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged – High Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the allegations while failing to consider that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must only adjudicate on the basis of material on record – Scope of interference and exercise of revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited – In the present matter, findings of sessions court are based on material on record – Order passed by sessions court upheld. [Paras 16, 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.