IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)

th ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1942 of 2024 VICTIM A Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shr Abhay Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Nitin Dubey - Advocate for respondent no. 2.

ORDER Per: Vivek Agarwal, J.

This appeal is filed by the victim being aggrieved of the judgment th dated 27/12/2023 passed by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Case No. 642/2019 whereby learned trial court has exonerated the accused from the charges under Section 376 (2)(n) and 294 of I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of exploitation on the false pretext of marriage. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix/appellant had given a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur on 30/09/2019 mentioning therein that for last eight years, the appellant and the accused were friends and they were in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV physical relationship with each other.

It is submitted that since this physical relationship was contacted on the false promise of marriage, therefore, such act will be an offence under Section 375 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has arbitrarily exonerated the accused from the charges under Section 376 (2)(n)

and 294 of I.P.C.

Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Government Advocate and Shri Nitin Dubey, learned counsel for accused Satyam Patel in their turn submits that he is innocent. It is submitted that relationship was consensual. Both the victim as well as the accused are of the same community. They are both major and they entered into the physical relationship after understanding the meaning and implications of said relationship.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence of the prosecutrix/appellant, it is evident and has been discussed by the learned trial court that in the cross-examination, the prosecutrix in para 13 has admitted that the age of the prosecutrix is about 30 years. After completing her B.Sc., she did her M.A. and is residing in Jabalpur since

2018.

In para 14 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was knowing the accused for last eight years as both the prosecutrix and the accused are resident of the same village.

Thereafter, she admitted that actually they were knowing each other for last 10-15 years, in as much as, house of the accused is just behind the house of the prosecutrix in the village.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV She further admitted that for last six to seven years, they have been continuously meeting each other and had developed a liking for each other resulting in love affair. She has admitted that because of such love affair, whenever they used to get privacy, they used to enter into a physical relationship for which she used to call the accused.

In para 15 of her cross-examination, this witness has admitted that whenever the accused used to visit her village, that time, she used to either call him in privacy or used to visit him and they used to establish physical relationship. She has also admitted that at one point of time, she had visited the place of the accused where husk is kept for consumption of animals and their they had established relationship.

In para 16 also, she has admitted that since 2012, they are in physical relationship with each other.

When all these aspects are examined in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019) 9 SCC 608, then it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn distinction between false promise and breach of promise and it is held that where promise to marry is false and intention of maker at the time of making promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive woman to co