Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
G. Achyut Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2019
Decided On : 21-05-2020
D.P. Dhal, Advocate, B.S. Dasparida, Advocate, S.K. Dash, Advocate, S. Mohapatra, Advocate, K. Mohanty, Advocate, Sangram Keshari Mishra, Advocate
Cases Referred
Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 6 Scale 211
Arak Sk. vs. State of West Bengal, (2001) CrLJ 416
Hari Majhi vs. The State., (1990) CrLJ 650
Holman vs. The Queen, (1970) WAR 2
Jayanti Rani Panda vs. State of West Bengal and Ors, (1984) CrLJ 1535
MirWali Mohammad vs. The State of Bihar, (1990) 2 PLJR 375
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Mashrashtra and Ors, (2019) 9 SCC 608
Queen vs. Clarence, (1888) 22 QBD 23
Saleha Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, (1989) CrLJ 202
Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Kerala, (2014) 5 SCC 678
Yedla Srinibas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 615
Consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent under Section 375 of I.P.C.
Headnote:
False Promise of Marriage - Bail Application - Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions related to consent, false promise of marriage, and the definition of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the interpretations of consent and false promise of marriage in various judicial pronouncements and emphasized that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent under Section 375 of I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with offences under Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015 based on allegations of establishing a physical relationship with the victim under false promise of marriage and coercing her to terminate pregnancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of false promise of marriage and coercion to terminate pregnancies were not conclusively proven at the initial stage, and the case required a thorough trial. It also emphasized that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent under Section 375 of I.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of consent obtained on a false promise of marriage and the interpretation of rape laws in cases involving false promise of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of consent and false promise of marriage in relation to the definition of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application, setting aside the previous order, and imposed terms and conditions on the accused while emphasizing that the observations made in the judgment should not affect the fair trial of the case.
JUDGMENT
S K Panigrahi, J. - The Present Application seeks to challenge the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in G.R.Case No.1013 of 2019 wherein the prayer for bail was rejected. The Appellant herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 493/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015 which, subsequently, turned to be a case under Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015.
2. The allegations in the F.I.R. are summarized below:
(a) The complainant victim Ms. X, aged about 19, belongs to ST community lodged a complaint on 27.11.2019 before the Police Station Patangi, District-Koraput. The content of the complaint as set out implicates the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015.
(b)According to her complaint, the appellant and the victim are the resident of the same village and known to each other. The Appellant had given her a mobile phone for facilitating regular communication and he had taken her for outing on a few occasions.
(c)Appellant promised to marry the victim and taking advantage of her innocence, he established sexual relationship with her. In the meanwhile, the victim got pregnant twice and the accused got the pregnancy terminated by administering some medicine. These facts are appropriately reflected in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C.
3. Heard Sri D.P. Dhal, Ld. Sr Counsel appearing for appellant and Sri Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondent and perused the case records.
4. According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the accused has never been involved in any manner in any criminal case and his antecedents are crystal clear. He further, contended that, assuming for the sake of argument but not conceding, the victim is a major and a consenting party in the sexual relationship, if at all her version of love relationship was existing for the last four years, the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. cannot be made out. It is a very serious matter that a victim just by making a false statement can book somebody in offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. read with Sections 493/313 of I.P.C. which is serious in nature and invites a harsh punishment. The probability of love relationship between the victim and the accused is slim and she is only a prisoner of imagination. He also stated that the allegation of administering medicines for termination of pregnancy is out and out a false allegation and he has never done so. The appellant being a young boy and having a bright future has unnecessarily been entangled in the present case and has been languishing in the custody since 19.11.2019. Since the investigation of the case has substantially been completed and most of the material witnesses have already been examined, releasing him on bail is not going to put spoke in the wheel of investigation.
5. ************
6. ************
7. Per Contra, Ld. Additional Standing Counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the instant bail application on the ground that the statement of the victim recorded under statement U/s 161, Cr.P.C. reveals that both victim and the accused had acquaintance since long and they were having intimate relationship. The Appellant herein, taking advantage of her innocence and under the pretext of promise to marry established physical relationship with her which resulted in pregnancy twice in the past. However, she was coerced by the accused to terminate her pregnancy with the help of some medicines. Thus, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. Hence, he contends that the accused is not entitled for bail and seeks for rejection of the Application.
8. Perused the L.C.R. and up to date case diary material on record more specifically the F.I.R. l
