The main legal point established in the judgment is that consent given by the prosecutrix in a love relationship, even on a promise of marriage, cannot be considered as given under misconception of fact unless there is evidence to prove the accused had no intention to marry from the beginning.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 12.08.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 36/15 arising out of FIR No. 112/14 PS Palam Village by which the appellant Rohit Tiwari was convicted for committing offence under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 20.08.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1.5 Lacs in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge- sheet was that from August 2013 to November 2013, the appellant committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name) on the pretext of marrying her. Written complaint (Ex.PW-6/A) lodged by 'X' dated 14.12.2013 formed the basis of First Information Report registered on 09.03.2014. 'X' was medically examined; her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 376/420/406IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He stated that prosecutrix herself used to give missed calls to him. They had physical relations. Relations were consensual. He told her that he was married and had two children. DW-1 Anjali Tiwari, his wife, appeared in defence. The Trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

4. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary testimony of 'X'. Needless to say, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case, the court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.

5. In her complaint (Ex. PW6/A), the prosecutrix stated that in the process of purchasing goods from the go down of the accused she developed friendship with the accused which later on blossomed into the love affair. They used to talk on phone. He used to visit her house and stay there. On 12.12.2012 he came to her house alongwith his Mami and Bhabhi and proposed to marry her. They further asked her to obtain divorce from her husband Sanjay Sharma hence first motion for divorce was completed on 24.06.2013. On 12.12.2012 both of them went to Mehendipur Balaji for ‘Darshan’. They spent the night together in the hotel and he established physical relations with her after pressurizing her. She was living separately from her husband for the last 17 years and it was at instance of accused, she obtained divorce from her husband. Accused established sexual relations with her between August 2013 to November 2013 on the promise of marriage. On 10.06.2013 they went to Mahakaal Mandir at Ujjain. She provided financial assistance to him. In November 2013 accused disappeared all of sudden and on enquiry she came to know that accused is already married. In her 164 Cr.P.C statement (Ex. PW 4/A) she reiterated the facts which she had stated in her complaint.

6. In her Court statement as PW-6, 'X' deposed that she had been residing separately from her husband for the last 17 years. About four years ago she came to know that household goods are being sold in the godown of accused at cheap price. She started buying goods from his godown. During the course of time, she and the accused became friends and accused started visiting her house. She deposed that accused told her that he is unmarried and is residing alone at Delhi in her maternal aunt’s house. He took her to his maternal aunt’s house where she met his maternal aunt and his sister in law. She further deposed that on 12.12.2012 accused came to her house with his maternal aunt and sister in law. They