False Promise or Broken Promise? Jharkhand HC Acquits Man in Rape Case

Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted of rape, holding that his relationship with the prosecutrix spanning nearly five years was consensual and that the case did not fall within the category of rape on a false promise of marriage.

A Single Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella, who had sentenced the appellant to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution's case, on 27.01.2004, the prosecutrix, then aged about 30 years, was returning from a fair at Pandupani along with two other women when she met the appellant near Sokaro Dungri. She alleged that he raped her on the pretext of marriage and had been sexually exploiting her for five years under the same pretext. A First Information Report was lodged three days later, on 30.01.2004, and the appellant was subsequently charged and convicted under Section 376 IPC.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was submitted that the prosecutrix herself admitted in her written report that she had been in a live-in relationship with the appellant for five years of her own free will, and that two other prosecution witnesses who had accompanied her to the fair testified that she was seen talking to the appellant herself and that there was a pre-existing love affair between them. 

It was further submitted that witnesses had confirmed that the prosecutrix used to stay at the appellant's house in the absence of his family members, and that there was no explanation for the three-day delay in lodging the FIR.

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor along with counsel for the victim, contended that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appellant's intent from inception was to satisfy his sexual desire without ever intending to marry the prosecutrix, thereby vitiating her consent under Section 90 of the IPC.

Examining the evidence, the Court noted that the prosecutrix's own testimony was inconsistent with her written report. While her FIR alleged that the appellant had sexually exploited her for five years on the pretext of marriage, in her deposition before the trial court she stated that the appellant first committed rape and only thereafter began speaking of marriage. 

She also admitted that she had told the police that she was "acquainted" with the appellant for five years, denying any suggestion of a five-year live-in relationship. The Court further noted that the two women who had accompanied her to the fair testified that there was a pre-existing love affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant, and that she was seen conversing with him on her own.

The medical evidence also weighed against the prosecution's case. The examining doctor opined that the prosecutrix was "habituated to sexual intercourse for several years," and that the symptoms of intercourse within five days would differ for a woman who was not habituated to it, as compared to one who was.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, the Court reiterated the distinction between a false promise and a mere breach of promise to marry:

"In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix... whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him... So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise."

The Court also held that any physical relationship claimed to be induced by a false promise must be shown to have a direct nexus with that promise, and cannot be inferred merely from a prolonged relationship maintained knowingly by the woman. It further placed reliance on Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court held that consensual intercourse with a grown-up woman is not rape, and that a misconception of fact must be proximate in time to the occurrence and cannot be said to be "spread over a period of four years."

Applying these principles, the Court found that the prosecutrix's own deposition where she stated that she informed the police of only two instances of rape and did not mention the alleged five years of exploitation undermined the prosecution's case. It observed that there was no eyewitness to the alleged incident of 27.01.2004, and that the prosecutrix could not be treated as a solely reliable witness given the contradictions between her written report and her deposition.

Holding that this was not a case of rape on a false promise of marriage, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC. The appellant, who was on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds along with his sureties.

Appearances: Mr. A.K. Sahani and Mr. Abhijit Kumar, Advocates appeared for the appellant; Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P., appeared for the State; Mr. Krishanu Ray and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates appeared for Respondent No. 2.

Case Title: Chunu Mardi v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1091 of 2008)