Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Shiv Pratap Singh Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023
Decided On : 08-07-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64 and 351] – Rape and criminal intimidation – Rejection of discharge application – It is inconceivable that prosecutrix who was about 22 years of age at the time of alleged incident, would accompany appellant to a temple if she was being threatened by appellant – She was a major and fully conscious of consequences of her own actions – It is not the case of prosecutrix that appellant had forced her to have bath under waterfall and thereafter took her photographs – Act of prosecutrix having bath under waterfall and changing her clothes thereafter in company of appellant virtually rules out any threat or coercion by appellant on prosecutrix – Physical relationship between prosecutrix and appellant cannot be said to be against her will and without her consent – Fact that appellant had lodged FIR two years after alleged incident is itself suggestive of consensual nature of relationship which had gone sour – On the basis of available materials, no case of rape or of criminal intimidation is made out – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 16, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 90 and 375 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 28 and 63] – Rape – Misconception of fact – An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as various possible consequences flowing from such action (or inaction), consents to such action – Consent with respect to Section 375 IPC involves active understanding of circumstances, actions and consequences of proposed act. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
Instant criminal appeal by special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 03.10.2019 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing Criminal Revision No. 2288 of 2019 filed by appellant. Criminal revision petition was filed by the appellant before High Court assailing order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior whereby charges under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against appellant and application for discharge filed by appellant was rejected.
Findings of Court:
There is hardly any possibility of conviction of the appellant. As a matter of fact, it is not even a case which can stand trial. It appears to be a case of a consensual relationship which had gone sour leading to lodging of FIR. In the circumstances, compelling appellant to face the criminal trial on these materials would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, result of the trial being a foregone conclusion.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior (the ‘High Court’ hereinafter) dismissing Criminal Revision No. 2288 of 2019 filed by the appellant. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court assailing the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (‘Sessions Judge’ hereinafter) in Sessions Trial No. 505 of 2018 whereby charges under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix had lodged a first information report (FIR) on 06.09.2018 alleging that in the year 2016, the accused (appellant herein) used to show photographs of hers and telling her to come to Gwalior with him otherwise her photographs would be uploaded on Whatsapp. It was due to fear that she came to Gwalior alongwith the appellant by train from Dabra. One boy from Anupam Nagar came to the railway station to receive her. On his motorbike, the prosecutrix and the appellant went to Anupam Nagar city centre where the appellant was living in rented premises. There, the appellant forcefully committed wrongful act on her. Thereafter, the appellant forcefully took the signature of the prosecutrix on an affidavit. It was mentioned in the affidavit that the prosecutrix would live with the appellant for life. After that she came to Dabra with the appellant and went home. Appellant used to tell her again and again about having a relationship. He told her that he would marry her after the marriage of his brother. But after the marriage of his brother when the prosecutrix broached the topic of marriage, the appellant told her that his brother had received Rs. 15 lakhs in marriage; if her family would give Rs. 15 lakhs then only he would marry her, otherwise not. Her parents went to the residence of the appellant with a marriage proposal but his family members turned out the proposal. In the FIR, it was alleged that the appellant while having relationship with the prosecutrix took money from her on various occasions totalling Rs. 90,000/-; besides jewellery were also taken. When the appellant started threatening the prosecutrix, she filed the FIR before the Vishwavidhyalaya Police Station, District Gwalior.
3. The FIR was registered as Crime No. 401 of 2018 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
4. Police carried out the investigation during the course of which statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was recorded on 11.09.2018. That apart, statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded on 12.09.2018 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.
5. Appellant filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge seeking his discharge. By the order dated 24.04.2019, the Sessions Judge took the view that prima-facie the chargesheet discloses sufficient evidence to frame charge against the appellant. In such circumstances, the accused (appellant) could not be discharged from the trial for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge, appellant filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The said petition was registered as Criminal Revision No. 2288 of 2019. By the judgment and order dated 03.10.2019, the High Court took the view that trial needs to be conducted for unearthing the truth and that no case for interference was made out. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
7. Assailing the aforesaid decision of the High Court, appellant preferred Special Leave
Rape – Misconception of fact – Consent with respect to Section 375 IPC involves active understanding of circumstances, actions and consequences of proposed act.
A long-standing consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit from the outset.
Consent under Section 375 IPC can be vitiated by a false promise of marriage only if it is proven that such promise was made without any intention to fulfill it at the time of the promise.
The distinction between consensual relations and rape lies in the perception and intention behind consent; the breach of a promise to marry does not equate to misconception if the relationship is con....
Consent under Section 375 cannot be considered valid if based on a false promise of marriage if the promise was not made with fraudulent intent from the outset. Subsequently, a prolonged consensual r....
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage, without intention to fulfill it, vitiates consent under Section 90 IPC.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
(1) Rape – Misconception of fact – There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by accused – It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a....
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
