The court established that emotional manipulation does not negate consent in sexual relationships, emphasizing the distinction between false promises and genuine breaches of promise.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in ST No.68/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/appellant acquainted with the prosecutrix (PW/7) whose age is 21 years, through facebook, about which the prosecutrix has informed to her mother and she along with her mother went to meet the accused/appellant near Bheema Talab (pond). Thereafter, families of both accused/appellant and prosecutrix decided to play matchmaker and set up the wedding but the family of appellant disagreed for the marriage of accused/appellant and the prosecutrix due to Nadi Dosha (Astrological incompatibility). Upon this the prosecutrix insisted that if the families are not agreeing then we must part ways. But the accused/appellant emotionally blackmailed the prosecutrix in the name of love and convinced her that he will marry her and one day stating so the accused/appellant took the prosecutrix to Mankadayi Mandir (temple) and had put vermilion (sindoor) on her head part and convinced her that he will be marrying her on papers at court. That, on false pretext of marriage the accused/appellant committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at his home and ultimately the accused/appellant refused to marry her. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix asked the accused/appellant several times to get married to her, the appellant got infuriated, uttered filthy language and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, on a complaint of prosecutrix (PW/7), FIR (Ex.P/6) with Crime No. 105/2021 had been lodged on 22.02.2021 on the basis of written statement (Ex.P/7) against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ). After obtaining consent of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P/8, she had been medically examined. Seizure memo, vide Ex.P/15 had been prepared after seizing article i.e., vaginal slide and underwear. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 of Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C .) in the presence of Judicial Magistrate whereas statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C . was recorded in the presence of women Police Officer. Spot map of the place of incident had been prepared vide Ex.P/9. After the accused/appellant had been arrested, Arrest Memo had been prepared vide Ex. P/13. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was medically examined and Seizure Memo vide Ex.P/11 had been prepared after seizing article i.e., underwear. Spot map of the place of incident was prepared by Patwari vide Ex.P/3. Articles seized in the case were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Bilaspur vide Ex.P/16 (Memorandum of Superintendent of Police) and FSL report was obtained vide Ex.P/18.

3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC .

4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . in which he denied the inculpatory circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded his innocence and false implication. However, the accused/appellant did not adduce any witness in his defence.

5. Learned trial court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering their rival submissions and the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in the opening para of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that th