Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the relationship is consensual and longstanding, as established in relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Session Case No.50/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that victim/prosecutrix lodged a written complaint (Ex-P/1) in Police Station Bastar at Jagdalpur to the effect that she is resident of village Mongrapal and her marriage was fixed with a person from village Kusma (Kondagaon) on 28.5.2020, but on 27.5.2020, Rupesh Kumar Puri, R/o. Mongrapal took her to his house on the promise that he will marry her and in the night he had physical relation with her. Despite her refusal he continued to have physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage, but on 07.8.2020 he ousted her by threatening and refused to marry her. Based on the written complaint (Ex.P/1), FIR (Ex-P/2) was lodged at Police Station Bastar against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur. Progress report (Article 01) of Class VIII of the victim was seized vide Ex-P/3. Spot Map (Ex-P/6) was prepared by Patwari. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Shrinkhala Jain (PW-3) and vide MLC report (Ex-P/9), she opined that any definite opinion regarding rape cannot be given. Vaginal smear slide and vaginal swab of the victim were seized vide Ex-P/10 and the same were sent to FSL for chemical examination. In which vide FSL report Ex.P/20 it was opined that no human spermatozoa was found in the vaginal smear and vaginal swab. The appellant was arrested vide Ex-P/17. The appellant was also got medically examined by Dr. RKS Raj (PW-6) and vide MLC report Ex-P/12, he opined that the appellant is not incapable to perform sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 376 IPC was filed against the appellant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bastar at Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur and the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar at Jagdalpur, who conducted the trial.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jagdalpur framed charges under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC against the appellant/accused who denied the charges and claimed for trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. No witnesses have been examined by the appellant/accused in his defense.

5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 21.02.2022, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, against which this appeal has been filed by him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim and the appellant are resident of same village and there was love affair between both the parties for long period. Earlier also under pressure of her maternal uncle (mama), the victim lodged FIR against the appellant for the offence under Section 354/34