Summary
Proceedings for repeated rape and criminal intimidation were quashed after the Court assessed the prosecution record as a consensual relationship that had ended without the contemplated marriage. Contradictory statements and failure to collect the alleged photographs, phone and financial or documentary material undermined the asserted coercion. The Court reiterated that a marriage promise vitiates consent only if false from inception and directly linked to the sexual decision.
Issues
- Whether the available prosecution material justified trial for rape and criminal intimidation.
- When a promise to marry amounts to a misconception of fact vitiating consent.
Provisions considered
- Section 375, Explanation 2; Section 376(2)(n), Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent requires an unequivocal voluntary agreement to the particular sexual act; absence of physical resistance alone does not establish consent. On its overall assessment of this record, the Court held the repeated-rape charge unsustainable. (¶¶ 18, 19, 24, 25)
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860A marriage-promise claim requires a promise false when made, in bad faith without intention to fulfil it, and an immediate or direct nexus between that promise and the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. The Court found the necessary misconception unestablished here. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The challenge arose from refusal of discharge and framing of charges. The Supreme Court held the material insufficient to sustain trial and quashed both the impugned orders and proceedings. (¶¶ 1, 5, 6, 24, 26, 27)
Held
- Consent under Section 375 requires active, voluntary agreement concerning the specific sexual act, assessed in all relevant circumstances. The statutory proviso makes clear that lack of physical resistance alone is not consent. (¶¶ 18, 22, 23)
- A promise to marry vitiates consent through misconception of fact only where it was false from the outset, made in bad faith without intention to honour it, and directly connected to the decision to participate in the sexual act. Failure of a contemplated marriage does not by itself establish those conditions. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The Court found material contradictions between the complainant’s police and magistrate statements. It also noted that the alleged photographs, phone, affidavits or stamp papers, jewellery, cheque and supporting bank material had not been seized or collected. On the cumulative record it rejected the asserted foundation of coercion and intimidation. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 24)
- On the facts before it, the Court characterised the relationship of nearly two years as consensual, with the complaint following unsuccessful marriage discussions. It held that neither rape nor criminal intimidation was made out and that compelling trial on this material would abuse the court’s process. These conclusions followed its assessment of this particular prosecution record. (¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 26)
- The High Court revision order and Sessions Judge’s order refusing discharge and framing charges were set aside. Sessions Trial 505/2018 before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, was quashed. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court and Sessions Judge orders quashed and Sessions Trial No.505/2018 at Gwalior terminated.