‘Mere breach of promise to marry not rape’: Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside man’s conviction

Background

The case of the prosecution was that the accused/appellant had been having physical relations with the prosecutrix, a minor girl of 16 years, for about three years before March 2007, on the pretext of marriage. As a result, she became pregnant, and then she informed her parents about the relationship.

Thereafter, a village meeting was held in October 2006, where the accused refused to marry her. She delivered a male child in January 2007. On the prosecutrix’s report, an offence was registered against the accused. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. Now, he is challenging his sentence before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rishikant Mahobia submitted before the Chhattisgarh High Court that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record.

He further argued that from the statement of the prosecutrix and her conduct, it is clear that she was a consenting party to the act of the appellant. He said she admitted that there was a love affair between them, and she disclosed this relationship only when she became pregnant.

Representing the state, panel lawyer Himanshu Yadu submitted that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment, which calls for no interference by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Court’s findings

• It is clear from the record of the trial court that the appellant was charged, tried and convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the Chhattisgarh High Court noted.
• The trial court found that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was aged between 16 and 18 years old.
• Though the prosecutrix stated that she did not remember her date of birth, as per her primary school certificate, it is 1990, which indicates she was a minor on the date of the incident.
• The prosecution has failed to adduce any legally admissible and clinching evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and thus failed to prove that she was below 16 years of age on the date of the incident.
• The prosecutrix clearly admits that she was in love with the appellant, and when she delivered a child, a village meeting was convened where the appellant refused to take her, following which the matter was reported to the police.
• During cross-examination, she admitted to the suggestion of the defence that there was a physical relationship between the two from 2004 to 2006.

‘Reasonable doubt’

• The prosecutrix admitted a longstanding love affair and continuous physical relations over two-three years, the Chhattisgarh High Court found.
• She acknowledged that the complaint was made only after the accused refused to marry her.
• Witnesses confirmed that the dispute arose after pregnancy and the refusal of marriage.
• No evidence of coercion, force, or misconception of fact is there.
• Though a child was born, no DNA test was conducted. The entry in the birth register naming the accused as father is based on information supplied by the prosecutrix and has weak evidentiary value.
• All these deficiencies in the prosecution’s case create a reasonable doubt, which must operate in favour of the accused.