Consent obtained in a prolonged consensual relationship without timely protest is not vitiated by false promise; delayed complaint weakens criminal liability under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgment dated 09.12.2022 in S.C.No.23 of 2021, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.

2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim aged about 24 years at the time of the occurrence had a love affair with the appellant who was aged 26 years, for a period of six years before the occurrence; that the victim told the appellant that since they belonged to different religions, it is not possible to get married; that appellant threatened the victim stating that if she did not marry him, he would commit suicide; and that on the promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the victim in her house on 17.06.2018 at about 1.30 p.m., and again on 21.06.2018 at about 12.15 p.m.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the victim on 18.07.2020, a case was registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police [PW14]. The FIR was marked as Ex.P10.

(iii) PW15, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and after examination of witnesses, filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikkravaandi.

(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and was committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.23 of 2021 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 12 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P12. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty of the offences under Sections 417, 376 r/w 90 of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:

The trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and acquitted him of the said offence. Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. Heard, Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

4. Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the complaint was lodged nearly 25 months after the alleged occurrence; that admittedly, there was a love affair and the allegation of cheating and rape, is an afterthought; that the evidence of the victim would only suggest that the relationship was consensual; and that the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence of the victim as regards the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC and prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent per contra submitted that though there is a delay in filing of the complaint, the evidence of the victim is cogent and convincing and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court based on the evidence of the victim and the other relatives of the vict