Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Hariom Shrivastava S/o Harinarayan - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Through Police Station Neelganga (Madhya Pradesh) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1380 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Virendra Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri Sachin Jaiswal

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent for physical relations was obtained under a misconception of facts, particularly in cases involving a false promise of marriage.

Headnote:
Section 376(2)(n) - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [Section 374, Sessions Trial No. 27/2021] - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and the court's analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. The court examines the issue of consent and the legal provisions related to consent known to be given under fear or misconception, as well as the interpretation of relevant case laws. The court ultimately sets aside the conviction and acquits the appellant.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case that he had committed forcible physical relations with the prosecutrix without her consent. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the issue of consent and the appellant's alleged false promise of marriage. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the physical relations were made under a misconception of facts, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the consent given by the prosecutrix for the physical relations and whether it was obtained under a misconception of facts due to a false promise of marriage by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, relevant case laws, and the examination of the evidence, which led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the physical relations were made under a misconception of facts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant was entitled to receive back the fine amount deposited and the seized property was disposed of as per the order of the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 17.01.2023 passed by 9th ASJ, Ujjain (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 27/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year R.I.

2. As per prosecution story, on 06.09.2019, the complainant lodged a written complaint before the police by submitting that the appellant works as Sales Officer in Indian Oil Corporation and at the relevant point of time i.e. May, 2019, he was posted At Ambikapur. The prosecutrix is an employee of EPFO (Employee Provident Fund Organization) and was posted at Ujjain at the time of incident. The prosecutrix became acquainted with the appellant through matrimonial site and they have started exchanging messages through whatsapp and video calls. On 22.07.2019, the appellant came to Ujjain to meet the prosecutrix and stayed in a hotel. The prosecutrix also came to the hotel and they had dinner together. When the prosecutrix asked him to go to her residence, the appellant prevented her from leaving the hotel by expressing his love and promising marriage to her. He established sexual relations with her. The appellant committed the offence subsequently as well but started avoiding her later on. In the meanwhile, the prosecutrix came to know that the appellant is having sexual dalliances with another girl and complaint was lodged by her against the appellant. On the aforesaid written complaint, an FIR was lodged under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. against the appellant.

3. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, appellant was charged for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.

4. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses namely prosecutrix (PW-1), Sunil Malviya (PW-2), Sujeet Sharma (PW-3), Dr. Kaynaat Qureshi (PW-4), Rajendra Meena (PW-5), Sumanlata Verma (PW-6), Rakhi Gurjar (PW-7), Sanjay Mandloi (PW-8) & Vidya Tomar (PW-9). No witness has been adduced by the appellant in his defence.

5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 17.01.2023 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has not committed any offence because the prosecutrix is a major lady and she was a consenting party, she remained in the relationship with the appellant for more than two years, she herself used to go with the appellant. Even, she had given her own documents to the hotel staff i.e. Adhar card. It is also submitted that the appellant had never forced her to make physical relation. It is also submitted that prior to the written complaint, she has not made any complaint to any person or authority. She stayed with the appellant in the hotel at various times, there is some whatsapp chats on record with the appellant and she has stated in para Nos. 17 and 18 of her cross-examination, and by which itself, it can be established that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

7. It is submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the same and in convicting