Back
R.F.NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, INDIRA BANERJEE
MAHESHWAR TIGGA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The court acquits the appellant of rape under Section 376 IPC, finding consent not proven to be under misconception of fact or fraud, given long-term relationship and absence of immediate fear-based consent (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Important requirement that questions to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be comprehensive and not casual; improper 313 proceedings prejudiced the defense (casual, perfunctory 313 questions) (!) (!) . - The delay in lodging FIR (four years) and timing before the appellant’s planned marriage raised doubt about the prosecutrix’s allegations; credibility and timing impacted the conviction (!) (!) (!) . - The evidence including letters and photos suggested a mutual love affair over years, undermining the claim of non-consensual rape; appellant acquitted on this basis (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses misperception of fact in consent, noting that misconception must be proximate in time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over years; consent in such long-standing relationships may be voluntary (!) (!) (!) . - The court cites Uday and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar authorities on consent and promise to marry not automatically constituting rape; no false promise established in this case (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
2. The appellant assails his conviction under sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) sentencing him to seven years, one year and one month respectively with fine and a default stipulation.
3. The prosecutrix, PW9 lodged FIR No. 25 of 1999 on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years ago the appellant had outraged her modesty at the point of a knife. He had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. She had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with her. Five days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R, the appellant had established physical relations with her on 09.04.1999. The appellant had cheated her as now he was going to solemnise his marriage with another girl on 20.04.1999. All efforts at a compromise had failed.
4. The Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on consideration of the evidence convicted the appellant holding that the prosecutrix was 14 years of age when the appellant had first committed rape upon her at the point of a knife. He did not abide by his promise to marry her. The High Co
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
