Summary
The Court acquitted the appellant of rape, hurt and wrongful restraint after finding that the prosecution had not reliably established the prosecutrix’s minority and that their prolonged relationship was consensual on the evidence. A marriage promise genuinely intended at inception did not become fraudulent merely because marriage later failed over religious and societal obstacles. The perfunctory examination of the accused also denied a proper opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances.
Issues
- Whether consent was vitiated by a promise of marriage never intended to be fulfilled.
- Whether the evidence established minority and sustained the convictions.
- Whether the examination of the accused afforded a fair opportunity to explain adverse evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applied the requirement that consent result from fear or misconception known to the accused; the evidence did not establish fraudulent intention from inception. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18, 20)
- Section 313(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Required meaningful questioning on incriminating circumstances rather than three compressed questions. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- Conflicting age evidence and absence of documentary proof prevented a reliable finding of minority. The possibility that the prosecutrix was above eighteen at the occurrence could not be excluded, requiring benefit of doubt. (¶ 7)
- Circumstances not put to an accused in examination cannot be used against him. Meaningful questioning enables both a defence and an explanation of adverse circumstances; compressed, perfunctory questioning fails the requirements of a fair trial. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Whether consent followed a misconception requires examination of the particular evidence and surrounding circumstances. Fraudulent intention at the inception of a marriage promise differs from a genuine intention subsequently frustrated. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18)
- The correspondence, engagement, prolonged relationship and knowledge of religious obstacles established conscious consent on these facts. The evidence did not prove that the appellant had never intended marriage; contradictions and the timing of the complaint further undermined the prosecution case. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 18, 20)
- The existing acquittal for cheating and insult was unchallenged. The record lacked medical evidence sustaining hurt, and the prosecutrix’s voluntary stay did not establish wrongful restraint. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; convictions set aside and appellant acquitted. Release forthwith directed unless wanted in another case.