State of Haryana vs Karan Sachdeva - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2734

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Karan Sachdeva – Respondent
CRM-A NO. 208 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 13-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana & Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial Court acquitted the accused based on the absence of evidence of force, highlighting that the prosecutrix was a consenting party in a lengthy consensual relationship - The court discussed the principles of consent in sexual assault cases, emphasizing that mere breach of a promise to marry does not amount to rape if consent was given voluntarily and knowingly (Paras 10, 12, 14, 18, 20).

(B) Criminal Law - The essence of the offence of rape is the absence of consent; the evidence indicated a consensual relationship rather than coercion or deceit (Paras 10, 18).

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix and accused maintained a consensual relationship for years after meeting through social media; the prosecutrix reported rape only after the accused refused to marry her (Paras 2.1, 2.2, 2.4).

Findings of Court:
The trial Court found that testimony of the prosecutrix lacked credibility, and hence the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 3, 18, 19).

Issues: The primary issues were whether the prosecutrix consented to the relationship and whether the promise of marriage constituted deception under Section 376 IPC (Paras 5, 12).

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that false promises leading to consensual relationships do not equate to rape; rather, informed consent negates the application of Section 376 IPC (Paras 10, 16, 19).

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. leave to appeal against acquittal. (Para 1)
2. trial court granted acquittal. (Para 3)
3. arguments regarding the promise of marriage. (Para 4 , 12 , 15)
4. court observations on evidence and consent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 19)
5. legal standards from precedent cases. (Para 16 , 17)
6. dismissal of appeal. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - The State has filed an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal, challenging the findings of acquittal recorded by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Sonepat, whereby the respondent-Karan Sachdeva was acquitted of the charges framed against him in FIR No.122 dated 13.04.2018 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Murthal, Sonepat.

2.1 Prosecution story in brief is that, the prosecutrix (name withheld) used to reside along with her father and brother in L-215, Shastri Colony, Delhi. The prosecutrix is about 24 years old, she had studied up to B.A. and doing a job. The respondent-accused sent a friend request to her on Facebook in the year 2015 and they started talking to each other. They also used to talk to each other on phone. The accused called the prosecutrix at Connaught Place for watching a movie and as such she went there on his request and after that accused had been frequently asking her to meet him. In December, 2015, accused came to the house of a friend of the prosecutrix and then he brought the prosecutrix to Kanak Hotel in Murthal, Sonepat. In the said hotel room, the accused promised the prosecutrix that he would perform marriage with her and she should trust her and asked the prosecutrix to have physical relationship. The prosecutrix insisted that she would have physical relationship only after getting married to the accused. The accused again insisted and upon his promise to get married to her, they developed physical relationship. Thereafter, for about 1 ½ year, the respondent had been making physical relations with her on the pretext of performing marriage with her. The prosecutrix asked the accused to disclose about their relation to his family members, upon which the accused called her at his residence and there also he made physical relationship with her. The accused also told his family members regarding performing marriage with her. However, on 26.01.2018, the accused refused to perform marriage with her and after that he stopped talking to the prosecutrix and even blocked her phone calls.

2.2 The prosecutrix reported the matter to the police and FIR was registered against the accused on 02.04.2018 in Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi under Section 376 IPC, which was sent to SSP, Sonepat. Thereafter, formal FIR No.122 dated 13.04.2018 was registered in Police Station Murthal, Sonepat, under Section 376 IPC. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded and her medico legal examination was also conducted. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the respondent-accused under Section 376 IPC.

2.3 After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., regarding supply of the documents to the accused, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed and respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.4 In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses, including prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-1 and the father of the prosecutrix appeared as PW-2 and both corroborated the prosecution case. PW-6 SI Veena, proved the original statement of the prosecutrix which was recorded by her in Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. PW-9 Sanjeev Kumar, Receptionist in Kanak Hotel, Murthal, Sonepat, testified that he could not bring the summoned record as it was burnt in the fire in their hotel on 01.05.2016 and FIR No.161 under Section 188 /436 IPC was got registered regarding the same. PW-14 L/ASI Manisha, is the Investigating Officer and she proved all the documents prepared during the investigation. P