Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute legal consent under IPC provisions.

1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-8 - 2011 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Bilasur.(for short, "the trial Court") Sessions Division Bilaspur (CG) in Session Trial No. 150 of 2009 wherein the trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charges under S.376 and S.506 of IPC.

2. As per prosecution case, respondent No. 2 is maternal uncle of prosecutrix (PW / 1). Prosecutrix is a student girl aged about 18 ½ years. In the Hindi month of Kartik, at about 9.00 p.m., respondent called prosecutrix for providing books, threatened her and took away her into his room and then closed the door, removed her clothes and thereafter committed rape on her. In the morning at about 3.00 a.m., respondent No.2 left the prosecutrix near her house. After reaching the house, prosecutrix narrated about the incident to her younger sister who narrated the same to her mother. Next day of the incident respondent No.2 took the victim to Raipur where both of them resided for three months. During the aforesaid period respondent No.2 made false assurance to marry her and developed physical relation with her. On 11-4-2009, respondent No.2 left the victim at Raipur and performed his marriage with another girl and threatened the victim to kill.

3. The matter was reported at Police Station, Women Cell, Bilasur. After registration of first information report, Police swung into action and started investigation. Both parties were medically examined. Certain articles were seized and sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 pleaded innocence and thereafter the trial was conducted. After examination of the witnesses, statement of the respondent No.2 was recorded under S.313 of the Code. After hearing the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 as aforementioned.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits as under:

(i) As per ration card age of the victim is 14 years and on the date of incident she was minor, therefore, finding of the trial Court that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident, is not in the fitness of factual matrix of the case.

(ii) When consent is obtained on false assurance of marriage, same is not consent as defined in S.90 of the IPC and the offence was established against the respondent No.2, therefore, the finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.

(iii) The trial Court was not justified in giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions appeared in the prosecution evidence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

6. It is admitted by the prosecutrix that she lodged the report as per Ex. P / 1 and in the said report her age is mentioned as 18 ½ years. In first information report (Ex.P / 2) age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 18 ½ years. Date of birth register or school register or any medical expert's opinion is not obtained in the present case regarding age of the prosecutrix. When prosecutrix is relying on documents Exs.P1 and P / 2, the same is binding on prosecution and from these documents, prosecutrix is not minor.

7. Prosecutrix (PW / 1) deposed that respondent No.2 is her maternal uncle and was having books of class 10th which were required to her and she visited the house of respondent No.2 for taking the books. As per her version, when she reached the house of respondent No.2, he closed the door of the house and thereafter committed rape on her. She further deposed that respondent No.2 assured her for marriage and upon his assurance she left for Raipur with respondent No.2 where they resided for three months. She further deposed that on 11-4-2009 responde