Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal in Sec 376 IPC Case Due to Lack of Credibility and Evidence

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent criminal appeal, has upheld the acquittal of two individuals in a case involving serious charges under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Bench, comprising the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, dismissed the State's appeal, noting substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case that rendered the allegations unreliable.

A Relationship Under Scrutiny

The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman who claimed to have met the accused on a popular matrimonial website, Shaadi.Com . According to the prosecution, the complainant remained in contact with the accused for three months before he allegedly invited her to his residence during a lockdown period, where he is accused of confining and sexually assaulting her under the pretext of marriage. The defense maintained that the interaction was consensual, highlighting various contradictions in the complainant's own statements.

Contradictions and Legal Hurdles

The Trial Court’s acquittal—subsequently affirmed by the High Court—rested on several key findings: * Social Activity: The complainant claimed she was under threat and unable to report the incident, yet cross-examination revealed she remained active on social media during the relevant period. * Inconsistent Allegations: The complainant had previously expressed reluctance to marry the accused, citing a lack of confidence in him, which cast doubt on the motive of a "false promise of marriage." * Geographical Discrepancies: There were significant contradictions between the location of the incident as stated by the complainant and the evidence provided by witnesses regarding the accused's actual residence.

Key Observations

The High Court underscored that sexual intercourse occurring within a relationship—absent evidence of force or coercion—does not automatically constitute the serious crime of rape. Delivering the judgment, the Court remarked:

> "The trial Court observed that even if such statement is accepted, it does not disclose forcible sexual intercourse and appears to be consensual. It was also noted that PW1 did not specifically state that she was subjected to forcible rape."

The Court further clarified the standard of proof required, noting: > "Consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape."

Addressing the timing of the complaint, the judgment highlighted established jurisprudence: > "The delay in lodging the complaint affected the credibility of the prosecution story."

The Verdict on Consent

The High Court's dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the principle that in cases of alleged sexual assault where a prior relationship exists, the court must meticulously distinguish between a "breach of promise" and a "rape under false promise."

By relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra , the Bench reiterated that the judiciary must be cautious when criminalizing sexual relations that seemingly lack the element of compulsion. The decision brings finality to the trial, emphasizing that while serious crimes must be prosecuted, the integrity of the evidence presented remains paramount to a conviction. The acquittal stands as a benchmark for scrutinizing the credibility of testimonies in sensitive criminal matters.