Back
Jharkhand High Court Overturns Citing Absence of False Marriage Promise to Victim
The has set aside the of a man found guilty of under (IPC), ruling that the evidence pointed to a long-standing rather than induced by a false promise of marriage. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, highlights the legal necessity of distinguishing between a and a false promise made from the inception.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident reported on . The prosecutrix, a 30-year-old woman, alleged that the appellant, Chunu Mardi, had committed on the pretext of marriage after meeting her at the Pandupani Mela. She further claimed that the accused had been sexually exploiting her for five years. Following a trial in the , the appellant was convicted and sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment in .
Arguments Presented
The defense argued that the relationship was consensual and that the accusations were a result of the appellant declining to marry the woman. Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the prosecutrix was a mature woman who had lived with the appellant at his residence by her own free will, and that the delayed filing of the suggested fabrication. Conversely, the State argued that the appellant had acted with fraudulent intent from the start, obtaining consent through a , thereby of that consent under .
Legal Analysis
The High Court’s reasoning was anchored in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically citing Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020). The Court noted that for a relationship to qualify as under the "false promise" category, the accused must have had no intention to marry from the very beginning. The Court observed that the medical evidence indicated the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, contradicting the narrative of a first-time violation on the date of the occurrence.
The bench clarified that when a physical relationship is maintained over a long period by a mature adult, it is difficult to isolate the promise of marriage as the sole basis for consent without considering other personal considerations.
Key Observations
The judgment provided critical insights into the criteria for evaluating such cases:
-
"In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust."
-
"Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under ."
-
"The medical evidence also shows that she was habituated for sexual intercourse for several years."
Court's Decision
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges , the High Court allowed the appeal and the appellant. The Court ordered the appellant to be discharged from his , effectively overturning the trial court’s sentence. This ruling reinforces the judicial precedent that not every breach of a marriage promise constitutes a criminal offence, particularly where the evidence supports a history of consensual, long-term association between the parties.
