The court determined that a consensual relationship based on a promise of marriage does not constitute rape unless there is clear evidence of deceit or misconception, leading to the discharge of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and Section 438 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 18^th November, 2024 passed in connection with C.T. Case No. 23 of 2019 by the learned Special Court under S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, Cuttack, whereby, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. demanding discharge from the alleged offences moved by him was declined on the grounds inter alia that such decision cannot be sustained in law and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by consequential directions issued in that regard.

2. The informant, who is the father of the victim, lodged the report at the local PS in the year 2018 alleging therein that his daughter was made to maintain a physical relationship with the petitioner for about two years on the assurance of marriage and as a result, she gave birth to a girl child but thereafter, for the events narrated therein, such relationship stood deteriorated and as a result, Jagatpur P.S. Case No. 347 of 2018 was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 493, 417, 294 & 506 IPC and ultimately, the chargesheet for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC, 417, 294 & 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)&(i) read with Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act was filed against the petitioner. The said chargesheet was filed in the year 2021, whereafter, in course of enquiry, the petitioner moved the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the particular offences levelled against him. However, the learned court below declined such discharge of the petitioner and rejected the application by the impugned order dated 18^th November, 2024 as at Annexure-4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the present revision.

3. Heard Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

4. Perused the report i.e. Annexure-1 and copies of the chargesheet and all other relevant documents including the statements of witnesses besides the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Initially, no case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was registered, however, at the end of the investigation, it was included in the chargesheet besides other offences under the IPC and SC & ST(PoA) Act.

5. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no any case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and SC & ST(PoA) Act. The contention is that the petitioner should have been discharged from the said offences considering the materials on record, however, the learned court below denied the same vide Annexure-4. It is contended that DNA profiling of the female child born to the victim was conducted during investigation and a negative report was received and in view of such a report at Annexure-2, the learned court below ought to have discharged the petitioner from the alleged offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC more so when the parties had been in a consensual relationship for two years and the F.I.R. was lodged when their marriage did not materialize and for having denied the parenthood of the child. The further contention is that considering the nature of evidence received during investigation, there is a bleak chance of conviction of the petitioner, the fact which wa