AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in
Sessions Case No. 50/2016. By the said judgment, the accused appellant was convicted under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default further simple imprisonment for six months.
As per the prosecution case, one week before the lodging of FIR, the accused appellant committed sexual intercourse with the victim alluring to
love her. When she raised objection to such act of the accused/appellant, he threatened to kill her and also stated that there was no prove of his
committing sexual intercourse with her. An FIR was lodged on 20.02.2016 by the victim herself and on the basis of the said FIR, police registered
a case being Kamargaon P.S. Case No. 21/2006. During investigation, statement of the victim was recorded by Magistrate under Section 164
CrPC. She was also subjected to medical examination and on completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused appellant
under Section 417/376/506 IPC.
In course of trial, charges were framed against the accused appellant under Section 417/376 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Eight
witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charge and on appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the present
appellant under Section 376 (1) IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. The accused was, however, acquitted charge under Section 417
IPC.
Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant, has preferred the instant appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. M. Biswas appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. B.B. Gogoi for the State were heard. This
Court also considered the evidence and materials brought on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel.
A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony transpired that PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 stated that there was love affair between the accused and
the victim. PW-3 stated that he had seen the accused visiting the house of the victim. The testimony of PW-8 appears to be totally hearsay as
according to him, he heard about the physical relationship between the accused and the victim. Therefore, testimony of PW-3, PW-4 , PW-5,
PW-6 and PW-8 are of no significance as none of them stated anything inculpating the accused.
PW-2, the mother of the victim was also a reported witness, inasmuch as, according to her she came to know from the victim that accused
committed sexual intercourse with the victim with the promise to marry her. Therefore, the only oral testimony left out is the testimony of the victim
herself and the evidence of the Doctor and Investigating Officer. Learned Trial Court essentially relying on the testimony of the victim recorded
conviction of the accused appellant. The conviction of the accused having been based on the sole testimony of the victim, her testimony needs to
be scrutinized.
PW-1, the victim stated in her evidence that the accused started visiting their house since 2013 and he also proposed to marry her and since
then a relationship of love developed between them. She further stated that with the promise to marry her, the accused committed sex with her
forcibly, taking advantage of the absence of her parents. She further stated that the accused had been committing sexual intercourse with her for
last two years. Later on, he refused to marry her and also stopped visiting her and therefore she lodged the FIR. In her statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, proved as Ext.2, she stated that she was in love with the accused for last two years and the accused had been maintaining
physical relationship with her saying that he would marry her. She further stated that on 17.02.2016, the accused had sexual intercourse with her
for the last time and after such sexual intercourse when she proposed that accused should marry her, the accused picked up quarrel. She also
stated that when she informed the accused that she would disclose about their relationship to her parents, the accused threatened her with dire
consequence, in case she discloses about their relationship.
When the statement of the victim made at different stages, more particularly, statement in the FIR, statement made under Section 164 CrPC and
the evidence before court are placed in juxtaposition, it appears, that the version of victim are different at different stages. In the FIR, she tried to
project a case that about a week before lodging the FIR, for the first time the accused committed sexual intercourse with her alluring her and
projecting that he loved her. In her evidence in court, she stated that physical relation between her and the accused took place for the last time on
17.02.2016 i.e. three days prior to lodging of the FIR. In her evidence before court she stated categorically, that she had been in physical
relationship with the accused since 2013 and such relationship developed initially on the proposal of the accused to marry her and they have been
enjoying sex for last two years. Again she stated in the same breath that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. In her
statement under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that they were in the relationship of love for two years and throughout the period of two years, the
accused was having sex with her by saying that he would marry her.
If the testimony of PW-1 before the court and her statement made in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, are taken
together her evidence in court for the first time that the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her is hardly convincing. From her
testimony in court and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is abundantly clear that she was in love with the accused for two years
and during that two year, they had been enjoying sex, whereas in the FIR she has given a different story projecting that the accused committed
sexual intercourse for the first time before one week of lodging the FIR with the allurement of developing a relationship of love with her. If her
statement in the FIR is accepted then it belies her statement in court and also the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, that during last two
years they were maintaining physical relationship on promise of marriage. One thing is abundantly clear from the changing stand and improvement
and embellishment in the statement of the victim at different stages, that she cannot be held to be a truthful and fully reliable witness. It is also
evident from her testimony that she concealed her relationship with the accused for last two years and only when her proposal to marry was turned
down by the accused, she disclosed the matter to her mother.
The totality of the evidence of PW-1 speaks loud and clear that her sexual intercourse with the accused was with her consent. Admittedly she
was a grown up girl of 23 years of age and she was engaged in love with the accused and also enjoyed sex for last two years, apparently with her
own consent. Only question therefore emerges in the instant case is whether her consent to sexual intercourse with the accused was on
misconception of facts. If her consent to sexual intercourse with the accused is found to be obtained by accused on misconception of facts, in that
case, invariably such consent would be no consent at all, and the sexual intercourse would inculpate the accused for the commission of offence of
rape.
Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the following decisions strenuously argued that sexual intercourse on mere promise to marry
without anything more itself is not sufficient to prove, that the consent was given on misconception of facts.
1984 Cr.L.J. 1535 (Jayanti Rani Panda Vs. State of W.B.)
(2003) 4 SCC 46 (Uday Vs. State of Karnataka)
(2005) 1 SCC 88 (Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar)
(2007) 7 SCC 413 (Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar)
The question whether consent given by a grown up girl for sexual intercourse on promise of the offender to marry her is a consent given by
misconception of fact has been excessively dealt by the Apex Court and also this court in various judicial pronouncement including those relied by
the learned counsel for the appellant as indicated above.
Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel, it is desirable to consider what actually consent means as intended by various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and more particularly, in the context of offence as defined in Section 375 IPC. Explanation 2 to Section
375 defines the consent as under:
Explanation - 2. - Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting
to the sexual activity.
Section 90 of the IPC lays down what is not a consent as intended by any section of the IPC, which reads as under:
Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. - A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the
consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe
, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or
Consent of insane person. - If the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature
and consequence of that to whish he gives his consent; or
Consent of child - unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
There is no evidence or material at all in the instant case that consent was given under fear of any injury. Evidently, the victim was a major girl
of 23 years of age and there was no material to show that the victim was under intoxication or of unsound mind and therefore, only question to be
considered is whether the consent was vitiated because of the fact that the victim consented to sexual intercourse under any misconception of facts.
The Apex Court in case of Dilip Singh (supra) elaborating the circumstances under which a consent stands vitiated as per Section 90 of the
IPC observed as under:
The factors set out in the first part of Section 90 are from the point of view of the victim. The second part of Section 90 enacts the corresponding
provision from the point of view of the accused. It envisages that the accused too has knowledge or has reason to believe that the consent was
given by the victim in consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact. Thus, the second part lays emphasis on the knowledge or reasonable
belief of the person who obtains the tainted consent. The requirements of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied. In other words, the Court
has to see whether the person giving the consent had given it under fear of injury or misconception of fact and the Court should also be satisfied
that the person doing the act i.e. the alleged offender, is conscious of the fact or should have reason to think that but for the fear or misconception,
the consent would not have been given. This is the scheme of Section 90 which is couched in negative terminology
In the FIR lodged by the victim herself, her categorical statement was that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her only once before
one week of lodging the FIR with the allurement of developing love with her. If her statement in the FIR is read together with her deposition in
court and also the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it transpires that she tried to conceal the fact that she was in love with the accused
for last two years since 2013. It is also evident from her testimony that she was enjoying sex with the accused for last two years, but she has not
stated when the accused made the promise to marry. There is no material in the evidence or in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, that she
consented for sex only believing on the promise of the accused that he would marry her. In order to hold that her consent was vitiated due to
misconception of facts, it is necessary to establish that she gave her consent believing the presentation of the accused that he would marry her, to
be true, or in other words had she not been deceived by promise of the accused, she would not have consented to sexual intercourse. From her
evidence in court and also in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as the statement made in the FIR, it is difficult to hold that
there was indeed a false promise at the beginning from the side of accused and upon believing such promise to be true, the victim consented for
sexual intercourse. There is also no material from which it can be inferred that accused also knew that the victim consented for sexual intercourse
on misconception of fact.
The version of the victim in court, that she consented for sexual intercourse with the accused only on being misled by promise of marriage
appears to be an improvement in her statement during evidence in court. The concealment of fact in the FIR that she was in love with the accused
for last two years as well as her conduct in not disclosing their relationship before her parents or anybody in the family and sought to disclose their
affairs only when the accused refused her proposal to marry, rendered her testimony that she submitted to the accused for sexual intercourse
during last two years while they were in love, only because of the promise made by the accused to marry her doubtful and unworthy of inspiring
confidence. There is no material on record to suggest, that had there been no promise or had she not been misled by promise she would not have
consented to the sexual intercourse with the accused. Thus, totality of the evidence of the victim clearly indicated that she being a grown up girl of
more than 20 years of age developed love with the accused and had been enjoying sex for last two years knowing fully the consequence thereof
only because of their relationship of love and not for any misconception of facts or promise of the accused to marry her.
Thus, prosecution having failed to establish beyond doubt that there was any promise and the accused obtained consent of the victim only on
such promise to marry her, further discussion with regard to the facts whether such promise amounts to deception or misconception of fact is
unnecessary in the instant case.
The broad ration laid down in all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is that consent by posecutrix to sexual intercourse
with a person with whom she has been deeply in love for long time on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be
given under a misconception of fact inasmuch as, mere proving the fact that the prosecutrix consented for sexual intercourse with her lover on
promise of marriage by itself is not sufficient to prove that such consent was given on misconception of fact, unless the court can be assured that
from the very inception the accused never intended to marry her. Mere proving the fact, that the prosecutrix gave her consent to sexual intercourse
on promise of marriage by the accused with whom she has been in love cannot be said to be a consent under misconception of fact.
Be that as it may, when totality of the evidence demonstrated that the victim is not a witness of starting quality to be relied upon for basing
conviction and the fact of the victim consenting to sexual intercourse only on promise of the accused to marry her having not been proved beyond
doubt, the question whether consent was under misconception of the fact becomes redundant. The victim being a major girl of more than 20 years
of age, having been in love with the accused for long time and had been enjoying sex for last two years, keeping their relationship concealed,
speaks loud and clear that her sexual intercourse with the accused was nothing but as the result of their deep love for long time, which can only be
termed as a promiscuity on her part. Absence of reliable evidence that the consent was obtained under threat of injury or misconception of fact and
the admission of the victim, that she had been in love with the accused for long time and engaged in sexual activity concealing their relationship from
everybody including parents, leaves no room for doubt that she consented to sexual intercourse with the accused and participated in sexual
intercourse willingly as a consequence of their deep love. When the evidence and the facts and circumstances demonstrated that the victim had
consented for sexual relation with the accused and there was no material to hold that such consent of the victim was vitiated of any reasons. The
sexual relationship between the accused and the victim in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot attract the culpability under
Section 376 IPC. Thus, totality of the evidence as discussed hereinabove clearly demonstrated that the prosecution has failed to bring home charge
under Section 376 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence of the accused deserves to be set
aside. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The accused appellant be released
and set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Send down the LCR.