Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 16651
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mitali Thakuria, J
Jagadish Barman – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A./25/2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.164, S.313, S.482, S.222, S.183
Indian Evidence Act: S.118, S.114
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Testimony of prosecutrix in sexual offences - Standing on par with injured witness - Requirement of corroboration - Not legally mandatory if testimony inspires confidence and appears credible. (Paras 18, 42, 43)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with committing rape and cheating under the premise of marriage. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant entered into a long-term physical relationship based on a false promise of marriage. Evidence revealed that the appellant made the promise at the outset but subsequently attempted to marry another person, demonstrating a lack of intent to follow through with the marriage from the beginning. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, finding that the promise of marriage was a calculated deception used to induce consent.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that there is a distinction between a 'false promise' of marriage (made in bad faith with no intention to perform) and a 'breach of promise' (a broken, but initially genuine, promise). The subsequent conduct of the appellant, including the production of documents indicating prior marriage, confirmed the lack of intent to marry from the inception. The Court determined that the prosecutrix's evidence was consistent and trustworthy, making her sole testimony sufficient for conviction.
Issues: Whether the consent for physical relations was vitiated by a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage, and whether the prosecution established the ingredients for the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a promise of marriage is made in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given, and such promise bears a direct nexus to the decision to engage in sexual acts, the consent given is vitiated by a misconception of fact, thereby amounting to the offence of rape. Credible testimony of a victim, even without independent corroboration, is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G Uddin, T Hussain, N Dekaraja, Y S Mannan, P Agarwal, P Adhikari, A K Azad, A H Sarkar
For the Respondents: PP, K P Pathak, K Baishya
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual allegations of the criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding lack of forced consent and distinction between breach of promise and false promise. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. respondent's argument on the evidentiary value of prosecutrix testimony and intent to deceive. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's re-evaluation of witness statements and hotel records as evidence of intent to deceive. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. legal principles on vitiated consent due to false promise of marriage and reliability of prosecutrix testimony. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of conviction under section 417 ipc. (Para 44) |
Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A.
Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Sessions Case No.198/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), for committing an offence under Section 376 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for committing an offence under Section 417 of the IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently and the period of detention, undergone by the accused appellant during the trial and investigation shall be set of.
3. The prosecution case, as revealed from the ejahar (FIR) lodged by the informant/the victim of the case is that on 19.03.2018, the informant Smti. ‘X’ (name withheld) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station, alleging inter alia that since last two years of lodging of the ejahar, there was love affairs between the informant and the accused appellant Jagadish Barman, who is serving as a BSF Jawan and on the false promise to marry the informant, he committed rape on her forcefully. Subsequently, the accused refused to marry the informant and tried to marry another girl and thereby the accused cheated her.
4. On receipt of the ejahar, the Tezpur P.S. Case No.560/2018 was registered under Sections 420/376 of the IPC and started investigation. The investigating officer visited the place of residence of the victim, recorded the statement of the witnesses including the statement of victim under Section 164 of the CrPC and the victim was medically examined. After completion of the investigation and having found sufficient evidence against the accused person, submitted the charge sheet against him under the said sections of law. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions; the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sonitpur at Tezpur. Accordingly, on appearance of the accused appellant, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and on appearance of the accused appellant before the learned Trial Court, the charges were framed against him under Sections 420/376 of the IPC and the charges were read over and explained, to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven (7) witnesses including the informant/vicim as well as the investigating officer and exhibited some documents in support of its case. The accused person was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC and he denied the allegation made by the prosecution. The accused/appellant had declined to adduce any evidence in his defence and after recording his statement und
