Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 109
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Girdhar Malaviya, J
Tekam alias Tekram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Sessions Trial No. 342/96
The court ruled that consent obtained through deception, particularly in cases involving individuals with disabilities, does not constitute valid consent under criminal law.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Conviction for rape - The prosecutrix was a blind girl, and her consent was obtained through a false promise of marriage, rendering it invalid under the law - The evidence indicated that she recognized the accused by voice, and although she was 18 years old, circumstances surrounding the case imply that her submission was not voluntary. (Paras 20-25)
(B) Consent - Definition of consent in the context of sexual intercourse under IPC - Consent implied by deception or false promise does not constitute valid consent, particularly in cases involving individuals with disabilities. (Paras 21-24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had a relationship with the blind prosecutrix, leading to repeated incidents of sexual intercourse under the guise of marriage proposals. Following the disclosure of her pregnancy, a community meeting was convened, wherein the appellant admitted to the act but refused to marry.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld as the actions of the appellant exploited the prosecutrix's vulnerability, and the consent was deemed invalid.
Issues: Whether the prosecutrix's consent can be considered free given her circumstances and the promise of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that consent must be given willingly and freely; in this case, the prosecutrix's consent was fundamentally flawed due to the promise made by the accused.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the sexual interactions between the accused and the blind prosecutrix. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding consent and identification of the accused. (Para 5 , 6 , 19) |
| 3. legal definitions and interpretations of consent in the context of rape. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. final conclusion and decision of the court. (Para 26) |
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29/11/1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342/96, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under S.376 of IPC and has been sentenced to 7 years R.I.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father and brothers at village Nandni Khundni. Her mother had left and married somewhere and the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers namely Nand Kumar, Ishwari & Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Ishwari, one boy named Tikendra, the accused, was also studying. Because of the friendship, the said boy used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused Tikendra used to visit there and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that at about one year before the incident, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in love with her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since she was blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by the accused that he will marry her and will give her all support and therefore, she submitted herself to the accused. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the prosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used to come and commit sexual intercourse with her. By such course of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the prosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point of time, the accused stop visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident were disclosed to the father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of Panchayat in the village. In such Panchayat, the accused was also called. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Panchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refused to marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case of prosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she could recognize the person i.e. the accused by his voice and by touch.
3. After the matter was reported, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and the Doctor gave its report by Exts. P2 & P3 and the age of the prosecutrix was also confirmed by radiological test by Ext. P4. After the entire examination and recording the statement of the witnesses, charge - sheet was filed under S.376 of IPC, wherein the learned Court below after evaluating the evidence on record had convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the evidence and the statement adduced during the course of trial.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was blind and therefore, she could not recognize or identify the accused. He further submits that in order to hold a person guilty in criminal trial, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the fact that the accused has committed rape on the prosecutrix. He submits that the evidence on record would show that there had been a number of person who were visiting the house of the prosecutrix and therefore attributing the charges of rape to the accused was completely wrong. He further submitted that, even if, the identification is not in question, in such case too, since the age of the pr
