Prolonged consensual relationships mitigate claims of rape based on a false promise of marriage, requiring distinct evidence of deception regarding consent.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J

I.A. No. 2197 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 31.07.2024 passed in S.T. Case No. 45 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-FTC for Rape Cases, Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 76 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years along with fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo imprisonment for six months.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per typed report of prosecutrix dated 23.03.2021 is that she developed friendship with the appellant Anil Kumar Mehta through Facebook in the year 2018. Thereafter the appellant proposed her for marriage. It is alleged that during 'Holi' festival of the year 2018 the appellant took her to Hazaribagh Mourya colony and kept her in a house where he forcibly established physical relation with her on promise of marriage.

3. It is further alleged that in the year 2019 the accused took her to Ranchi police colony where he made physical relation with her. In this way he made physical relation with her several times. When the informant used to tell for solemnizing marriage, then he used to differ the matter. It has further been alleged that ultimately the appellant demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry for solemnizing marriage with the informant.

4. On the basis of typed report of prosecutrix dated 23.03.2021, FIR was registered bearing Ichak PS Case No.76/2021 u/s 376 of I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of offences was taken u/s 376 of I.P.C the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Hazaribagh.

6. On receipt of the case record by the Office of Ld. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, the same was registered as Sessions Trial and the trial proceeded in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years along with fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

7. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Argument on behalf of the appellant:

8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that there is vital contradiction in the statement of P.W.-6 with regard to the allegation of commission of rape.

9. It has been contended that the learned trial court has also failed to take into consideration that in the FIR, the Prosecutrix/victim has stated that she was subjected to rape for the first time in the year 2018 but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the said incident happened in the year 2019 as also the medical report does not support the case of rape.

10.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire case as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet is false and cooked up. The victim/prosecutrix is a major educated girl, who was fully conscious of the consequences of