IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the validity of consent and the relevance of a promise to marry in cases of sexual acts, as well as the consensual nature of the relationship.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. An application under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed seeking Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 04.10.2021 acquitting the respondent Pawan Kumar in case FIR No.250/2019 registered under Section 376(2)(n)/323 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village, Delhi.

2. On the complaint of the prosecutrix that she had been raped by the respondent/accused Pawan Kumar, he was Charge Sheeted for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) and 323 IPC.

3. The charges under Section 376 (2)(n) and 323 IPC were framed against the respondent/accused on 30.09.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses. The most material being PW1 the prosecutrix `M', PW2 `D' the mother of the prosecutrix and PW3 `R' the brother of the prosecutrix. PW4 Vikas Kumar Tiwari is the neighbour and PW5 was W.SI Saroj the I.O of the case.

5. According to the testimony of prosecutrix `M' as PW1 the respondent/accused was known to her since last 5-6 years as he was the friend of her brother and used to visit their house. They exchanged mobile numbers and used to talk to each other and gradually became friends. They started going out and at times he would take her to the house of his friend Vikas at Raj Nagar, where the respondent established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The respondent used to establish relationship with her at least four times in a month and this continued for a period of four years. Thereafter, the prosecutrix got married on 30.11.2017 and went to reside with her husband at Gautampuri, Shahdara. After about 8 months the accused came to her house and told her that he wanted to marry her and sought two years time. The prosecutrix took divorce from her husband in Panchayat. Thereafter, she again established physical relations with the respondent/accused at different places. According to her, the respondent established the physical relationship on a promise to marry. On 28.06.2019 at about 06:30 P.M the respondent came to their house and threatened her and her brother that he would kill them. Thereafter, on the same day the prosecutrix with her brother went to his house at 07:00/07:30 P.M, where they were beaten up by the respondent and his brother. Thereafter, the complaint Ex.PW1/A was made on 29.06.2019. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/E was recorded on 29.06.2019 by the learned M.M. in Dwarka Courts.

6. PW4 Vikas Tiwari in his testimony had deposed that he knew the prosecutrix as he resided in the vicinity. In the year 2017, he was working in Groffers as delivery boy where the respondent was also working. He became familiar with the respondent through the prosecutrix as he used to visit her house. Vikas Kumar Tiwari took accommodation on rent at Raj Nagar-II, where the respondent used to visit him of and on. He deposed that the respondent used to keep his bag of Groffers Company at his house and also to collect it in his absence and for that reason, he had the keys of his house. At that time PW4 was living alone as his wife was residing in her parental home in Shahdara. PW4 Vikas Tiwari, however, deposed that the respondent never brought the prosecutrix to his house.

7. The Statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he pleaded that he had been implicated falsely.

8. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix that there was any false promise of marriage when the respondent first established physical relationship with her or continued thereafter and acquitted the respondents. Being aggrieved, the present Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State.

9. The Submissions were heard as advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

10. The alleged incident may be categorized in two parts; some incidents happened before the date of marriage of the prosecutrix i.e. 30.11.2017 and certain incidents ha