IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
SHITIJ GAUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. M-8834 of 2016
Decided on : 15-03-2016
Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Sections 376/506 IPC - Section 90 IPC - Section 376 IPC - Section 90 IPC - K.P. Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka 2011 (14) SCC 475, Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 802, Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-14699 of 2014 on 26.5.2014, Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-131 of 2016 on 10.3.2016, Vikul Bakshi v. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 (1) JCC 54, Rohit Chauhan v. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1030, Nirmal Vaid v. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (12) RCR (Criminal) 2406, Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) Crimes 37 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 90 IPC and Section 376 IPC, along with various judgments, to determine the validity of the consent given by the victim and the accused's intention to marry. The court concluded that the accused obtained consent under a misconception of fact and committed the act of rape, as defined under Section 376 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 376/506 IPC. The petitioner claimed that the complainant falsely implicated him and concealed her marital status and child. The complainant alleged that the petitioner obtained her consent under false assurance of marriage and then backed out.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations and whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties. It concluded that the petitioner obtained the victim's consent under a misconception of fact and committed the act of rape as defined under Section 376 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the victim's consent, the petitioner's knowledge of the victim's marital status, and the intention to marry. The court also considered the relevance of the whatsapp messages as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 90 IPC and various judgments to establish that obtaining consent under a misconception of fact constitutes rape. It emphasized that the victim's consent was not voluntary and the accused misled her with false promises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, concluding that no ground was made out to grant bail to the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 12 dated 31.1.2016 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at Women Police Station, District Gurgaon.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, whereas, he was not involved. The petitioner is unmarried, whereas, the complainant is a divorcee and is having a 12 years old daughter as well. Both the parties were known to each other for the last few months. The complainant introduced herself as an unmarried girl to the petitioner with an ulterior motive and there was involvement of her family members also. Even in whatsapp messages, the complainant has shown herself to be an unmarried girl and the factum of her earlier marriage was not told to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that both the parties were having liking for each other but no promise of marriage was ever made. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Thimmappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka 2011 (14) SCC 475, Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 802, of this Court in Ram Lubhaya v. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-14699 of 2014 on 26.5.2014, Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-131 of 2016 on 10.3.2016, of Delhi High Court in Vikul Bakshi v. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 (1) JCC 54, Rohit Chauhan v. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1030, Nirmal Vaid v. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (12) RCR (Criminal) 2406 and of Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. State of Maharashtra 2014 (4) Crimes 37, in support of his contentions.
3. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant and submits that the petitioner was well aware about the marriage of the complainant and her daughter from the earlier marriage. Not only promise for marriage was made but under the pretext of marriage, physical relations were also made with the complainant. The petitioner subsequently backed out from the marriage and offence under Section 376 IPC is made out as has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Naushad, 2013 (16) SCC 651.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as other documents available on the file including the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was ready to marry with the complainant but it was not told to the petitioner that the complainant was earlier married and a daughter was also born from the said wedlock. It is also the argument of learned counsel that no promise to marry was ever made to the complainant.
It is apparent from the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties that the petitioner was well aware about the earlier marriage of the complainant and the daughter from the earlier marriage. Now the question for consideration is with regard to the consent of the victim. Section 90 IPC defines consent known to be given under `fear or misconception', which reads as under:-
"90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception - A consent is not such consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception."
Section 376 IPC is also relevant in the present case, which reads as under:-
376. Punishment for rape.-
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be lia
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.