Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sunder Mohan, J.
Ameen Batcha – Appellant
versus
State Rep. by its, Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.73 of 2023
Decided on 20.1.2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Criminal Appeal – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 417, 376 read with 90 – Appeal against Conviction – Rape on the false promise of marriage – Offence whether sustainable – On facts, Appellant Acquitted – The evidence only reveals a consensual relationship for a prolonged period of time that turned sour and hence, the offence under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC, are not made out on the facts of the case. It is also to be noted that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version with regard to the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC – Court is of the view that the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence – Appeal allowed.
Held: Admittedly, the appellant and the victim had a love affair for more than six years. The allegation is that the appellant had sexual intercourse twice viz., for the first time on 17.06.2018 and for the second time on 21.06.2018. The complaint was not lodged immediately thereafter.
It is no doubt true that merely because there is a delay in lodging the complaint, the victim cannot be disbelieved.
However, in this case, it is the prosecution case that the appellant and the victim had a love affair for more than six years. It is also seen from the cross-examination of the victim [PW1] that the appellant and the victim had several financial transactions between them and shared a good relationship.
It is also seen that when the victim had handed over her gold chain for raising money by pledging/mortgaging to one Sasikumar and that when the said Sasikumar refused to redeem the chain, the appellant had helped her to redeem the chain.
The evidence of PW1 therefore would make it clear that the physical relationship was not only due to the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry the victim. The victim was aged 24 years at the time of occurrence and she was aware of the consequences of her act and it cannot be said that her consent to have sexual intercourse is only on the false promise of marriage.
The victim is not naive or gullible and she was capable of understanding the consequences of her acts. Further, the complaint that the appellant committed sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage was made for the first time 25 months after the alleged occurrence. In this case, delay would certainly assume significance. The evidence of the other witnesses at best reveals that the appellant and the victim had a close relationship and therefore, those witnesses would be of no avail to the prosecution to establish the alleged false promise or that the consent was on the alleged false promise. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 at best would reveal a breach of promise and would not establish the alleged deception said to have been made.
Whether the accused on the false promise of marriage had obtained consent from the victim for sexual intercourse and thus committed the offence of rape. [Paras 6 to 14]
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgment dated 09.12.2022 in S.C.No.23 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.
2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim aged about 24 years at the time of the occurrence had a love affair with the appellant who was aged 26 years, for a period of six years before the occurrence; that the victim told the appellant that since they belonged to different religions, it is not possible to get married; that appellant threatened the victim stating that if she did not marry him, he would commit suicide; and that on the promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the victim in her house on 17.06.2018 at about 1.30 p.m., and again on 21.06.2018 at about 12.15 p.m.
(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the victim on 18.07.2020, a case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police [PW14]. The FIR was marked as Ex.P10.
(iii) PW15, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and after examination of witnesses, filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikkravaandi.
(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and was committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.23 of 2021 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’.
(v) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 12 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P12. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty of the offences under Sections 417, 376 r/w 90 of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:
| Offence under Section | Sentence imposed |
| 376 r/w 90 IPC | To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo SI for three months. |
| 417 IPC | No separate sentence was imposed for this offence |
The trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and acquitted him of the said offence. Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.
3. Heard, Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. C.E. Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the complaint was lodged nearly 25 months after the alleged occurrence; that admittedly, there was a love affair and the allegation of cheating and rape, is an afterthought; that the evidence of the victim would only suggest that the relationship was consensual; and that the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence of the victim as regards the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent per contra submitted that though there is a delay in filing of the complaint, the evidence of the victim is cogent and convincing and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court based on the evidence of t
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a false promise of marriage leading to sexual intercourse constitutes rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and the validity of con....
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
Rape – Misconception of fact – There is distinction between rape and consensual intercourse – Accused is not liable for offence of rape if victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Th....
The court established that consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of deceit or lack of consent, emphasizing the importance ....
The court ruled that consensual sexual relations among first cousins, lacking fraudulent intent, do not constitute rape or cheating under the IPC.
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
