SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 17

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
TILAK RAJ – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4896 of 2015)
Decided on : 06-01-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Consensual sexual intercourse with a mature lady cannot constitute offence of rape.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417 and 506 Part I – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Cheating and criminal intimidation – Appeal against conviction – Acquittal from rape charge – Prosecutrix was an adult and mature lady of around 40 years at the time of incident – It is admitted by prosecutrix in her testimony before trial court that she was in relationship with appellant for last two years prior to incident and appellant used to stay overnight at her residence – Evidence as a whole including FIR, testimony of prosecutrix and MLC report prepared by medical practitioner clearly indicate that story of prosecutrix regarding sexual intercourse on false pretext of marrying her is concocted and not believable – Act of appellant seems to be consensual in nature – There is no evidence against appellant from which it can be conclusively inferred by Court that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of prosecutrix by appellant to constitute offence under Section 415 of IPC – For conviction of Appellant for said offence, it is important that all necessary ingredients constituting offence under said Section must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant cannot be convicted for offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of IPC as prosecution has failed to prove all ingredients of said offence beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of prosecution is neither believable nor reliable to bring home charges leveled against appellant – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is not based on a careful re-appraisal of evidence on record – Appellant acquitted of all charges levelled against him. (Paras 19 to 24)

       (1970) 2 SCC 740 – Relied.

       Facts of Case:

       Present criminal appeal is directed against impugned judgment and order passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal whereby it has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by respondent-State and has upheld acquittal order passed by trial court in favour of appellant herein.

       Findings of Court:

       Evidence of prosecution is neither believable nor reliable to bring home charges leveled against appellant. We are of the view that impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is not based on a careful re-appraisal of evidence on record by High Court and there is no material evidence on record to show that appellant is guilty of the charged offences i.e., offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 of IPC and offence of criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 part I of IPC.

       Result : Appeals partly allowed.

       

Judgment

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2012 whereby it has partly allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent-State and has upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in favour of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). However, it has convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506 part I of IPC but instead of imposing sentence on the appellant for the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 17.03.2015 the High Court has released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-with two sureties in the like amount.

3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:

On 06.01.2010, the Assistant Sub-inspector of Police (ASI), Chamba (H.P.) received a complaint from prosecutrix through the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Shri. K.D. Sharma, Chamba (H.P). In the said complaint, it was alleged by her that on 01.01.2010 she was raped and physically assaulted by the appellant. It was also alleged by her that when she went to the police station to register her complaint regarding the offence of rape she was threatened with dire consequences by the appellant on phone. Allegation of sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage was also made by her in the said complaint.

4. On the basis of said written complaint FIR No. 6 of 2010 was registered by the ASI under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC and investigation was conducted by the investigation officer. After investigation a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant developed intimacy with the prosecutrix (PW 2) about two years prior to the incident. He allured her on the pretext of marriage. On 01.01.2010 the appellant sexually violated the person of prosecutrix in her residential accommodation in Karian, Chamba. At the same time, he not only ravished her but also physically assaulted her by slapping her and twisting her arm.

6. On the next day i.e., on 02.01.2010, the prosecutrix decided to approach the Police Station, Chamba to get FIR registered against the appellant for the offence of rape. However, at about 6 AM when she reached near Police Station the appellant threatened her against making any complaint or report about him to the police officials otherwise he would kill the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she did not make any complaint.

7. On the same day, the appellant met prosecutrix near the Regional Hospital, Chamba and offered to take her to his home. He persuaded her not to lodge FIR against him and even promised in writing to marry her. He assured her that both of them would stay as husband and wife. However, instead of taking her to his house he dropped her at her residence with a promise that he would return soon. The appellant did not return thereafter. Feeling cheated thereby, on the same day, she reported the matter to Sh. K.D. Sharma, DSP, Chamba.

8. On 05.01.2010, both the appellant and the prosecutrix were called in the office of DSP, wherein the appellant agreed in presence of DSP, Chamba and one Yoginder Mohan (PW 3) to marry the prosecutrix the next day i.e., on 06.01.2010. On 06.01.2010, when the prosecutrix along with her family came forward for solemnization of marriage, the appellant did not turn up. The same day FIR No. 06 of 2010 was registered against the appellant. He was booked for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC.

9. The Court of Sessions, Chamba in sessions trial no. 40 of 2010, after examination of the evidence on record, vide its judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 acquitted the appellant-accused of all





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top