IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that consensual relationships, even if based on promises of marriage, do not amount to rape unless there is clear evidence of deception or coercion, and the standard for proceeding with charges requires a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 22nd March, 2023 passed by the learned AJC-XV-cum-FTC-(CAW), Ranchi in S.T. Case No.18 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the discharge application for the offence under Sections 420 and 376 of the I.P.C. has been rejected.

3. The brief facts leading to this criminal revision are that the informant—victim gave the written information on 16th April, 2022 with these allegations that she came in contact of one Mr. Jitendra Kumar over the mobile phone. Thereafter both began to exchange talk over the mobile phone. One day, Jitendra Kumar called her to his room and allured her to marry and established physical relation with her. He also asked her not to tell in regard to occurrence to anyone and he would get marry her. However, she did not disclose this occurrence to anyone. He used to come to her house and whenever found opportunity being her alone he used to establish physical relation with her. In the year 2020, after death of her mother she was married with one Shravan Kumar and went to her in-law’s house but one day Jitendra Kumar told everything to her husband, whereby her husband sent her to her paternal house. She asked Jitendra Kumar, the reason of disclosing this event to her husband, he stated that he would keep her with him forever and again physical relation began to establish between them. In the month of October, 2021, one daughter was born and he refused to admit her to be his daughter. On this written information, Case Crime No.113 of 2022 was registered under Section 420 and 376 of the I.P.C. against Jitendra Kumar.

4. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and in paragraph 3 of the case-diary re-statement of the victim-informant was recorded in which she reiterated all those allegations which were made by her in written information.

5. In paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the case-diary, the statements of witnesses Sanat Kumar Singh, Ajit Kumar, Subham Kumar Singh and Rajmati Devi were recorded respectively. The witness Sanat Kumar Singh is the father of the victim and witnesses Ajit Kumar and Subham Kumar Singh are the brothers of victim and witness Rajmati Devi is the neighbour of the victim. All these witnesses have stated that they had come to know in regard to the relations of the victim with the accused in the year 2018 and since then they were having knowledge of their relations. All these witnesses have also stated that the victim was also got married by them with Shravan Kumar Singh and she also lived in her in-law’s house. When the accused disclosed this occurrence to her husband she was sent back to the paternal house and again the relation between the victim and the accused further continued to establish. In paragraph 16 of the case-diary, it is stated that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that in the year 2014, she began to talk with Jitendra Kumar. In the month of June-July, 2014, he called her to his house and established physical relation with her and told not to disclose any one in regard to the same. She also became pregnant five to six times but each time, the abortion was done. In the year 2018, she also conceived and told in regard to the occurrence to her mother. After death of her mother, she was married with another person and began to reside with her husband. Again on disclosure of the relation by Jitendra Kumar to her husband she began to meet with Jitendra Kumar and also became pregnant. In October, 2021, a baby girl was born. Jitendra Kumar also got married in November, 2021 and he refused to admit him to be father of baby girl.

6. After her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the I.O., verified the fact of abortion in Narayani Hospital, Birsa Chowk but the same was not