Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order against the appellant for rape and offences under the SC/ST Act. On the complainant's own Section 164 CrPC statement, she was an adult who entered a consensual relationship out of mutual affection, not because of a false promise of marriage, and her statement contained no caste-based abuse. Continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether, on the complainant's Section 164 CrPC statement, a prima facie case of rape on a false promise of marriage was made out against the appellant.
- Whether the ingredients of the SC/ST Act offences were made out on the highest allegations in the chargesheet.
- Whether continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Provisions considered
- Sections 375 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court asked whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage. Both parties were adults, and the initial relations were consensual and preceded any promise. The complainant was also the one who declined the appellant's offer to elope and marry. At most there was a breach of promise, not an inherently false promise, so the charge of rape could not stand. (¶¶ 11, 14, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Relying on precedent, the Court treated a consent as given under a misconception of fact only where the accused never intended, from the outset, to marry. A mere failure to keep a promise does not bring Section 90 into play. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court treated the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 as the best evidence on record and the basis of the allegations. It found that the statement contradicted the prosecution's theory of inducement through a false promise of marriage. (¶¶ 10, 20)
- Section 3 (offences for which the appellant was summoned), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The complainant's statement did not contain a single word indicating that the appellant abused or maligned her for belonging to a particular caste. The ingredients of the SC/ST Act offences were therefore not made out on the face of the allegations. (¶¶ 21, 23)
Held
- Where both parties are adults and the physical relationship begins out of mutual attraction and affection, before any promise of marriage, the relationship does not flow from a promise to marry and the consent is not vitiated. (¶ 14)
- Applying Uday, Deepak Gulati and Deelip Singh, the Court distinguished a breach of promise to marry from a false promise made with no intention of marrying from the start. Only the latter vitiates consent, and here the complainant consented of her own desire. The appellant had in fact proposed to elope and marry, and it was the complainant who wanted to wait until he found a job, which runs against the prosecution case. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The prosecution's theory of inducement by a false promise of marriage was neither corroborated nor established by the complainant's Section 164 CrPC statement, the best evidence on record. The allegation of forced termination of pregnancy had already been dropped from the chargesheet. (¶¶ 12, 20)
- Since the complainant's statement contained no allegation of caste-based abuse, the SC/ST Act offences were not made out ex facie, even on the highest allegations in the chargesheet. (¶ 21)
- The case was one of a consensual relationship between two adults that had turned sour, and allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal allowed. The summoning order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gazipur, and all proceedings against the appellant under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act were quashed, and the High Court's order was set aside.