Court orders rape trial for man who backed out of marriage promise, wed someone else

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava found no merit in the revision plea of the petitioner and dismissed the same.

The high court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the accused challenging an October 2023 order of a Ranchi trial court rejecting his discharge plea.

Friendship to Mahila Police Station

It was claimed that the survivor is a tribal and unmarried woman who allegedly came into contact with the petitioner in August, 2014, when both were working as labourers in an apartment.

It was alleged that due to the development of friendship and a love affair, the petitioner promised the woman to marry her and took a vow that he could not live without her. It was alleged that under the pretext of marriage, the petitioner established a physical relationship with her, which continued till August, 2020.

It was alleged that the petitioner fled, telling the woman that he would return from his native place after some days, but he got married to another woman.

Subsequently, the woman lodged a complaint at the Mahila Police Station on March 17, 2020, when the petitioner was making pretensions to marry her. It was also claimed that the petitioner appeared at the mahila thana and accepted his relationship with the woman and also agreed to marry her.

Then, the case was allegedly dropped due to conciliation between the parties. It was further alleged that in spite of conciliation taking place at Mahila Thana, Ranchi, the petitioner deceitfully fled away and did not marry her and also stopped talking with her.

It was also alleged that during her living with the petitioner, the woman became pregnant, which was terminated by administering some medicine to her by the petitioner against her will and consent.

Later, the woman filed a complaint, and by an order dated December 16, 202, the court concerned directed that an FIR for the offence of rape, miscarriage, and voluntarily causing hurt against the petitioner be registered.

Subsequently, the matter reached the trial court, where a criminal miscellaneous petition was filed for discharge of the accused from the alleged charges, which was rejected by the said trial court and was ultimately challenged in this revision.

‘No meticulous examination’

• The court found that the plea taken by the petitioner that he was willing to marry the woman, but could not do so due to objection from his family members, constitutes a defence that can only be tested during trial after evidence is led.
• It was noted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the defence version or weigh the probative value of the evidence.
• Finding no merit in the revision plea of the petitioner, the court dismissed the same.

She is narrating false fabricated story

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sumeet Gadodia argued that although there was friendship and a cordial relationship between the petitioner and the women, the allegation about indulgence in a physical relationship on the promise of marriage is an absolutely false and fabricated story.

He added that the fact was that, being friends, the complainant was taking all pressure tactics against the petitioner to get married to him, which was never acceded to by the petitioner.

He added that the petitioner had married another woman in April 2024, and being annoyed with the marriage of the petitioner, the woman has lodged this false case with all false allegations.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was also harassed and compelled to appear before the Mahila Police Station in 2020 only as a pressure tactic by the complainant.

He wants to fulfill his lust only

On the contrary, assistant public prosecutor Shweta Singh argued that the petitioner has tried to take a defence plea at the stage of framing of charge, which has rightly been declined to be accepted by the trial court.

It was added that it is a clear-cut case of false promise of marriage from the very inception. It was mentioned that the intention of the petitioner was not to marry the woman, but to fulfill his sexual lust only.

It was submitted that despite undertaking before Mahila Thana that he would marry the complainant very soon, he fled away, and later got married to another lady, which also fortifies his deceitful intention from the very inception.

It was added that the complainant is a tribal lady and the petitioner is also a Hindu, as such, there was no legal embargo on marrying each other and again, the petitioner has taken a false plea that his mother declined to get him married to the woman.