The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of consent and promise of marriage in cases of sexual assault under the SC/ST Act and IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Mata Prasad Yadav, the learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the entire record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2800/2022 : Mohan Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 262/2022, under Sections 342, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Akhand Nagar, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecutrix in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per prosecution version the prosecutrix and appellant were in relation with for the last six months and they loved each other and were ready to solemnize marriage. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant and one named person and one unknown person, but after investigation names of Rajpati Yadav and another person were dropped and the charge sheet was filed against the appellant only. The prosecutrix in the F.I.R. admitted this fact that she was in relation with the appellant for the last six months and the appellant has promised for marriage and it was a false promise of marriage and forcefully physical relation was made. The prosecutrix in F.I.R. has admitted her age to be 20 years and thus she is major.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecuterix was major and she was a consenting party and knew the consequences very well that the promise of marriage can be broken at any stage by the appellant but in spite of knowing this fact she continued to remain in relation with the appellant and as per averment of prosecutrix, the appellant made physical relation with the prosecutrix, thus the story appears to be false and concocted and the present F.I.R. has been lodged under pressure created by the family members of the prosecutrix.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. repeated the same version of the F.I.R. but did not dispute this fact that she was in relation with the appellant for the last six months and the appellant made promise of marriage.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegation of rape as levelled in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also got demolished after perusal of medical report of the victim, wherein concerned doctor has opined that there is no external or internal injury found on the private parts of the victim, nor the doctor has given any definite opinion regarding sexual assault and urine pregnancy test came negative. As per medical report the age of the prosecutrix is around 20 years.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no such promise was ever made and even though if any promise is made with the prosecutrix, she was major and was knowing the consequences very well. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 and placed reliance upon paras 17 and 21, which are reproduced hereunder:-

"17. In Uday v State of Karnataka the complainant was a college going student when the accused promised to marry her. In the complainants statement, she admitted that she was aware that there would be significant opposition from both the complainants and accuseds families to the proposed marriage. She engaged i