Wednesday, January 22, 2014

False ipc 498a complaint and denying sex to spouse are ground for divorce: Bombay HC

False ipc 498a complaint and denying sex to spouse  are ground for divorce: Bombay HC



Bombay High Court

RMA      
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2013

Neelam Sanjay Chaurasia ]
Age - 23 Years, Occ - Housewife, ]
R/at 51/53, 2nd Kumbharwada Dutt Niwas, ]
1st Floor, Room No. 9, Mumbai - 400 004. ] Appellant 
(Org. Respondent)

Versus 

Sanjay Hanuman Prasad Chaurasia ]
Age - 29 Years, Occ - Business of Beetle  ]
Leaves, R/at. 151, Saroj Niwas, 2nd Floor, ]
Room No. 15, Sant Sena Maharaj Lane, ]
Girgaon, Mumbai - 400 004. ] Respondent 
(Org. Petitioner)
Ms. N.M. Baig for the Appellant 
Mr. Osman Chisty a/w Mr. Ashish A. Dubey for the Respondent 

CORAM  : SMT.  V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SHRI. P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ

DATE  :JANUARY 16, 2014.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-wife and learned counsel for the respondent-husband.

2. This Family Court Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the learned II Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1562 of 2010. The Petition No. A-1562 of 2010 was filed by the respondent-husband for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the said judgment and order, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

3. A few admitted facts are as under:-The marriage between the appellant Neelam and the
respondent Sanjay took place on 27.04.2008 as per Hindu Vedic Rites. Since, 21.05.2008, the appellant is residing in her parental home. 

4. The case of the respondent was that the marriage took place on 27.04.2008. On the first night, the appellant did not allow him to touch her and refused to consummate the marriage. Thereafter also, the appellant did not allow the respondent to consummate the marriage on one pretext or another. Lastly, their marriage was consummated on 01.05.2008. That was the only time that the respondent had sexual contact with the appellant during her stay in the matrimonial house till 21.05.2008. On 21.05.2008, the appellant went to her parental house to attend pooja and thereafter did not come back to the matrimonial home.

5. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of the respondent so as to disbelieve his version that the marriage between them has been consummated only on 01.05.2008 and prior to that date and thereafter, the appellant refused to have sex with the respondent. The evidence of the respondent that the appellant avoided physical relations with him is sufficient to hold that he was subjected to cruelty by the appellant during the course of her stay with him.  

6. Sex plays an important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lend to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment. In the case of Shashi Bala Vs. Rajeev Arora 1(1 DMC 721 Delhi High Court) , it is held that, "Sex is the foundation of marriage and  marriage without sex is an anathema. Willful denial of sexual  intercourse without reasonable cause would amount to cruelty. A person enjoying normal health being deprived of normal cohabitation by spouse and thus undergoing anguish and frustration could be said to have been subjected to mental cruelty. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of  Reshma Rakesh Kadam Vs Rakesh Vijay Kadam 2(2 Family Court Appeal No. 141 of 2012 with Civil Application No. 308 of 2012) decided on 04.12.2013. 

7. The case of the appellant is that in fact she was treated with cruelty and soon after the marriage on 21.05.2008, when a pooja was arranged in the house of the parents of the appellant, a demand for dowry of Rs. 1.5 Lacs was made by the respondent. This version of the appellant is not at all believable in view of Exh. 27 which are the minutes of the meeting of Sarvajanik Samajik Panchyat meeting which was held between the appellant, respondent and their family members on 26.06.2008. The said document was proved by the witness of the appellant RW 4 Ram Kishor Gayadin Chourasia who was present in the meeting. The minutes of the meeting clearly show that the appellant, her  parents as well as all the persons from the side of the wife i.e the appellant have admitted that no demand for dowry was made by the other side. Accordingly, written document was prepared. Thus, this clearly falsifies the case of the appellant that dowry was demanded by the respondent from her parents and due to this,she was harassed and treated with cruelty.

8. After the meeting held before the Sarvajanik Samajik Panchayat on 26.06.2008, another meeting was called by the Social Service Branch, Crawford Market, Mumbai on 25.08.2008.
The appellant and the respondent were present in the meeting. In the said meeting, it was decided that the respondent will acquire separate residential house for him and the appellant to reside and till then, he will pay Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent but the appellant had refused to accept the amount. Accordingly, the respondent informed the Senior Inspector, Social Service Branch, Mumbai. The respondent then obtained separate residential premises on leave and licence basis at Vitthalwadi, Kalyan as it was decided in the meeting before the Social Service Branch that the appellant and the respondent would reside separately. It was further decided that there would be physical relations between the appellant and the respondent and from 01.11.2008, the respondent would take the appellant to the separate accommodation which he has procured. Till then, the appellant will reside with her parents. However, even before that period was over, on 13.10.2008, the appellant filed an FIR against the respondent and his family members under Section 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506(2) of IPC. Due to this FIR, the respondent and his family members were arrested and were in police custody till 16.10.2008. Thereafter, they were released on bail. In the said FIR, the appellant alleged that the respondent and his family members demanded dowry and as the demand was not met, she was physically and mentally harassed and treated with cruelty. From the document Exh. 27, it is clear that no demand for dowry was made by the respondent or his family members. This shows that the respondent and his parents were arrested and kept in police custody on the false complaint filed by the appellant. In such case, the learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly held that it has caused cruelty to the respondent and his parents. 

9. The specific plea of the respondent is that the appellant subjected him to cruelty by filing a false case against him and his parents due to which they had to remain in police custody for number of days. In the case of Meena Rani Vs Madan Lal 3 (3 1995(2)H.L.R. 97), it is observed that the wife alleging maltreatment with her for want of dowry and the allegations levelled by the wife appearing to be palpably false. Therefore, the allegations of the wife caused cruelty to the husband and the husband is entitled to get divorce on that ground. In the present case, the allegation of the wife about demand of dowry is not trustworthy and believable. However, on the basis of her complaint, the respondent and his parents were kept in police custody. Therefore, the above authority is useful to support the respondent's contention that the appellant caused cruelty to the respondent. The evidence of the respondent that the fact that he and his parents were kept in police custody due to the false complaint by the appellant caused cruelty to him and his parents is trustworthy and reliable. 

10. The case of the appellant is that on 21.05.2008, she was forced to leave her matrimonial house on account of demand of Rs. 1.5 Lacs, however, the evidence of the appellant's witness i.e her mother RW 2 Pushpa Vinod Chaurasia and RW 4 Ram Kishor Gayadin Chaurasia shows that she went to her parents house on 21.05.2008 to attend pooja ceremony which was arranged by her parents and since then, she is residing at her parent's home. We have already observed earlier that the story of the appellant that there was demand of dowry is found to be false. This shows that the appellant went to her parent's home on 21.05.2008 to attend pooja ceremony and she was not compelled to leave her matrimonial house either by the respondent or his parents and since then, she is living in her parent's home. It was decided in the meeting of Social Service Branch that the appellant would go and reside with the respondent on 01.11.2008 after the respondent obtained separate accommodation. The respondent did obtain the separate accommodation on leave and licence basis, however, prior to 01.11.2008, the appellant filed a false FIR against the respondent and his family members. Thus, the evidence of the respondent Sanjay shows that he tried to obey the decision taken in the meeting which was held by the Social Service Branch, Crawford Market, Mumbai as well as in the meeting held by Samaj Sudharak Panchayat. The evidence on record shows that the respondent made attempts to co-habit with the appellant but the appellant has refused and neglected to cohabit with him. 

11. Learned Judge of the Family Court has considered all the aspects and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant Neelam caused cruelty to the respondent Sanjay and has thus granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. No interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to  costs.

[SHRI. P.N. DESHMUKH, J ] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj


Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Delhi Court - GIRLS LODGE FALSE CASES TO ESCAPE PARENTS’ SCOLDING

GIRLS LODGE FALSE CASES TO ESCAPE PARENTS’ SCOLDING


IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 34/13.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0366402011.
State Vs.  Sushil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o H. No.122, Sector-5,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.4.2011.
FIR No.208 dated 19.8.2009.
U/s. 375/376/420/406/493/120B/506 IPC.
P.S. Delhi Cantt.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 28.9.2013.
Date of pronouncement : 07.10.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been chargesheeted by
the prosecution for having committed the offence punishable u/s.
376/493/506 IPC.
2. It is revealed from the prosecution case that the FIR in
this case has been registered pursuant to order dated 18.8.2009
of the Ld. Magistrate passed in the complaint filed by the
prosecutrix namely 'V' (real name withheld in order to conceal her
identity) u/s.200 of Cr.PC. The accused Sushil Kumar is the
younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the elder sister of the
prosecutrix namely Hemlata. The gist of the complaint filed by the
SC No.34/13. Page 1 of 19prosecutrix is mentioned hereunder :
“The sister of the prosecutrix gave birth to a daughter
and her mother-in-law requested the parents of the
prosecutrix to take post delivery care of Hemlata as
she herself had to attend another daughter-in-law who
was admitted in the hospital. Accordingly, the parents
of the prosecutrix sent her to the house of the accused
to take care of her sister Hemlata. The prosecutrix
stayed in the house of the accused from 30.12.2008 to
14.1.2009 and used to do all the domestic work. The
accused and his family members initially showed love
and affection towards the prosecutrix and won her
trust and confidence. The accused developed intimacy
with the prosecutrix and came very close to her.
Taking advantage of the innocence and simplicity of
the traditional girl i.e. the prosecutrix, the accused
started teasing her and on one day even went to the
extent of outraging her modesty. The prosecutrix was
totally shattered and disturbed due to the said act of
the accused. She objected to the said conduct of the
accused and the accused at first offered his apology
and promised not to reveal said incident to anybody
but later on threatened her with dire consequences if
she disclosed the same to anybody. The prosecutrix
was not in a position to narrate the incident to
anybody and taking advantage of her such precarious
position, accused again outraged her modesty. The
accused, in collusion with his brother, Pramod
SC No.34/13. Page 2 of 19managed to take photographs of the prosecutrix in
objectionable position with the sole motive to
blackmail her and pressurise her not to take any legal
action against him. The accused and his brother
clicked few photographs of the prosecutrix in
compromising position with the accused. When the
prosecutrix protested to their said actions, accused
and his mother assured her that she will be got
married to the accused. On pretext of solemnizing the
marriage with the accused, they persuaded her to
come out of her parental house on 17.1.2009
alongwith her date of birth certificate and four
passport size photographs so that the formalities for
the marriage could be completed. The accused made
a telephonic call to the prosecutrix on 21.1.2009
asking her to be ready on the next day i.e. 22.1.2009
at 11.30 a.m. to accompany him for solemnizing the
court marriage. With the hope that her marriage is
going to be solemnized with the accused, the
prosecutrix reached the given place where the
accused was already present alongwith his friend
named Pappu. From there, she was mischievously
taken to Hari Nagar Bus Depot and ultimately, to ISBT
in an auto rickshaw. Sh. Pramod, the brother of the
accused, was already present on ISBT and helped the
accused and the prosecutrix to board a bus for Jammu.
When the prosecutrix objected as to why she is being
taken to Jammu, Pramod told her that it was not
possible to solemnize the court marriage at Delhi and
SC No.34/13. Page 3 of 19therefore, he has made all the arrangements at
Jammu and he would also be reaching Jammu the next
day. On reaching Jammu in the morning of 23.1.2009,
the accused took her to a hotel where a room had
already been booked. There the accused put vermilion
on the forehead of the prosecutrix and declared that
they are now husband and wife. The accused took
several photographs of the prosecutrix there in
various postures and objectionable position with some
ulterior intention. The accused also treated the
prosecutrix very badly at Jammu, tortured her and
threatened her not to disclose to her family members
about the court marriage. When the prosecutrix asked
the accused why the court marriage is not being
performed, he told her that the agent is in the process
of completing the formalities. The accused
continuously raped the prosecutrix at Jammu on giving
her assurance that they are now husband and wife
and there is nothing wrong in such act. The accused
brought the prosecutrix back to Delhi on 29.1.2009
and told his mother that she is now his wife and will
live with him. The mother of the accused objected and
called her son Pramod who told the prosecutrix that
she is a girl of bad character as she has stayed outside
her parental house for 8 – 10 days. The accused
objected to the utterances of his brother Pramod but
was beaten by Pramod as well as his mother. The
prosecutrix was thrown out of the house stating that
they have no relation with her. The prosecutrix was in
SC No.34/13. Page 4 of 19a state of shock and grief on account of aforesaid
conduct of the brother and mother of the accused.
Thereafter, Pramod, who himself is a driver, with the
help of his mother pushed the prosecutrix into his car
and dropped her at some lonely place in Delhi Cantt.
area and informed her maternal uncle Sh. Krishan
Dass telephonically that he can pick up the prosecutrix
from that place. Pramod also threatened that in case,
she disclosed anything to her parents or initiated any
legal action against them, he will kill her younger
brother Prithvi Raj. On reaching her parental home,
the prosecutrix was in a state of utter shock and grief.
However, on the persuasion and support of his family
members, she disclosed everything to her parents,
who took her to the police station Delhi Cantt. On
30.1.2009. Police initially was not inclined to register
the complaint but on the insistence of the prosecutrix
and her family members, registered the complaint as
per their suitability but did not take any action.”
3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
entrusted to SI Saroj Bala. She made efforts to search the accused
but did not succeed. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over
to SI Sunita Sharma. She came to know that the prosecutrix has
been got medically examined by SI Aditi Lilly in DDU Hospital vide
MLC no.2183/09 on 05.2.2009 during the course of inquiry on the
complaint. Accordingly, SI Sunita Sharma seized the exhibits given
to SI Aditi Lilly by the doctor after medical examination of the
prosecutrix. She also seized the documents relating to the age of
SC No.34/13. Page 5 of 19the prosecutrix from Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Delhi Cantt.
where she had studied, which reveals her date of birth to be
10.9.1985. SI Sunita Sharma then produced the prosecutrix before
the concerned Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s.164
Cr.PC. Accused Sushil Kumar came to be arrested. However, she
did not find any prosecutable evidence against accused Pramod
and accused Dulari Devi. She recorded the statements of the
relevant witnesses and prepared a draft Charge Sheet. Thereafter,
she was transferred from the police station and further
investigation was entrusted to SI Satto Yadav. She got the accused
medically examined in DDU Hospital and seized his blood sample
given to her by the doctor. She sent the exhibits to FSL for forensic
examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, the Charge
Sheet was filed against accused Sushil Kumar before the
concerned Magistrate.
5. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions,
charges u/s 376 IPC and u/s 493 IPC were framed against the
accused on 07.04.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
charges and accordingly trial was held. The prosecution has
examined 16 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused.
Ld. APP also tendered in evidence the FSL results which are Ex.PA
and Ex.PB. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on
06.08.2013 wherein he denied all the incriminating facts and
circumstances put to him and claimed false implication. The
accused has also examined a Pediatrician from Safdarjung Hospital
as DW-1 in his defence.
SC No.34/13. Page 6 of 196. Be it noted here that the father of the prosecutrix had
made a call at telephone No.100 on 30.1.2009 at 9.52 pm saying
that his daughter had been taken away by her brother-in-law
(devar) and later on dropped her behind APS Colony Pump House
near Jharoda village after committing wrong act with her. This
information was recorded as DD No. 15A in the Police Station and
was marked to SI SD Mishra for action. Accordingly SI SD Mishra
alongwith SI Netarpal reached the spot as mentioned in the DD
and found the prosecutrix alongwith her parents present there.
The prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to him wherein she
has mentioned that she is in love with Sushil Kumar, the brotherin-law of her elder sister Hemlata for the last six months but her
parents are not in favour of her marriage with him and, therefore,
they both had gone to Vaishno Devi about one week ago where
they lived like husband and wife. She had further written that
either her marriage be solemnised with Sushil Kumar or action
may be taken against his parents. Upon further inquiries made by
SI S.D. Misha, and thereafter by one lady SI, conclusion was
arrived that no cognizable offence has been made out in this case.
It also needs mention that during the course of aforesaid inquiries
being made, the prosecutrix had sent a written typed complaint
dated 6.3.2009 to the DCP S/W, New Delhi alleging that she had
been raped by the accused on the promise of marriage. Since the
police had concluded that no FIR needs to be registered in the
case, the prosecutrix then approached the court of ld. Magistrate
with a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2009 which was
accompanied by an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. upon which, the
FIR was then registered pursuant to the order of the ld. Magistrate,
as noted at the outset.
SC No.34/13. Page 7 of 197. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have
perused the entire material on record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1. She
deposed that on  30.12.2008, she had gone to the matrimonial
house of her sister i.e. flat No.122, Sector-5, R.K. Puram, New
Delhi. On 9.1.2009, she was still in the matrimonial house of her
sister. On that date, the accused committed rape upon her in a
room of the aforesaid flat in the afternoon. About a couple of days
earlier also, he had grabbed her hand with bad intention and at
that time she had resisted his moves. On 14.1.2009, her brother
brought her back to her home. On 17.1.2009, accused had come
to her house and took the copies of her school certificate and
photographs for the purposes of completion of formalities for
marriage with her. He had assured her that he would marry her.
On 22.1.2009, accused came to her house again. At that time she
and her younger sister only were present in the house. The
accused was accompanied by one of his friends. He called her
outside the house and took her on his motorcycle. He took her to
some place in Uttam Nagar and thereafter to ISBT from where they
boarded a bus to Jammu. They reached Jammu on 23.1.2009 and
stayed there in a hotel. In the hotel also he had sexual intercourse
with her assuring her that he would marry her. He stated that he
has given the documents to a lawyer for the completion of
formalities for court marriage. On 24.1.2009, they went to Mata
Vaishno Devi Shrine. They returned therefrom on 25.1.2009 and
stayed at Jammu in a different hotel till 28.1.2009. During this
period also, accused had sexual intercourse with her on several
SC No.34/13. Page 8 of 19occasions. They left Jammu on 28.1.2009 and reached Delhi in the
morning of 29.1.2009. The accused took her to his house. She
was kept in a room and the accused went somewhere else. The
brother of the accused namely Pramod abused her and threatened
her that he would get her raped by 8 to 10 persons. Thereafter
the parents and brother of the accused accompanied by the
mediator of her sister’s marriage as well as the friend of the
accused, left her at the house of a colleague of her mother.
Thereafter her parents and her brother came and took her
alongwith them. Next day i.e. on 30.1.2009, they reported the
matter to the Police. The accused made a call to the police official
who was handling the complaint and told him that he would marry
her. For that reason, no action was taken by the Police on that
day. Since the Police did not take any action against the accused,
she filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate and it was
pursuant to the order of the Magistrate that FIR was registered in
PS Delhi Cantt. on 5.2.2009, she was got medically examined by
the Police in DDU Hospital.
9. She has also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
recorded on 24.10.2009 as Ex. PW1/A. In answer to a leading
question put to her by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court,
she admitted that she was present alone in the house of her sister
on 09.01.2009 as all the family members except the accused had
gone to hospital and the accused forcibly laid her on a sofa set and
raped her. She also admitted that accused had threatened her that
in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, the marital life of
her sister would be ruined. She also admitted that on reaching
Jammu on 23.1.2009, the accused applied vermilion on her
SC No.34/13. Page 9 of 19forehead and made her to believe that she is his wife and
thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her representing
that they are husband and wife. She further admitted that she had
conceived a child and she got the pregnancy aborted on 28.2.2009
in a private clinic at Basant Gaon.
10. In the cross examination, the prosecutrix (PW-1)
deposed that she is 8
th
pass and can read Hindi language but
cannot read English language. She was shown a complaint dated
30.1.2009 addressed to SHO PS Delhi Cantt., her statement
recorded by the SHO, PS Delhi Cantt. and her complaint dated
6.3.2009 addressed to DCP S/W. She admitted her signatures on
all these three documents and the same are Ex. PW1/DA, Ex.
PW1/DB and Ex. PW1/DC respectively. She further deposed that
she was aware about the engagement of the accused which had
taken place in the year 2008 but she did not remember the exact
date. She had attended the engagement ceremony but she did not
know the girl to whom the accused was got engaged. She
admitted that the photograph Ex. PW1/DD was taken at the time
of engagement ceremony of the accused and she is seen in the
same. She admitted that the entire complaint Ex. PW1/DA is in her
handwriting and in the statement Ex. PW1/DB, she has mentioned
that she is in love with the accused. She, however, added that IO
had made her to give such statement. She admitted that contents
of the complaint Ex. PW1/DC were drafted by her counsel on her
instructions and she had apprised her counsel that her statement
was taken by the Police under pressure. She denied the suggestion
that she had requested the accused to marry her but he refused
and added that infact accused had made a proposal for marriage
SC No.34/13. Page 10 of 19which she refused. She admitted that her parents had made a call
at telephone No. 100 alleging that accused had done some wrong
act with her in APS Colony behind Jhadera Village. She was present
alongwith her parents at APS Colony Pump House when the police
reached there and thereafter they were taken to Police Station.
She admitted that her parents and her relatives had gone to the
house of the accused on 29.09.2009 to discuss the issue of her
marriage with accused. She denied having told the police that she
was in love with the accused and intended to marry him. She
further deposed that she was not under any pressure at the time
of giving the photograph and school leaving certificate to the
accused and the same were given by her out of her own free will.
She was alone when she handed over the photograph and
certificate to the accused. She had not apprised her parents and
brothers regarding this fact. She further stated that at the time of
incident at her sister's house, no one was present there except
herself and the accused as all other family members had gone to
Safdarjung Hospital for the treatment of her sister's daughter .
11. Smt. Hemlata, the sister of the Prosecutrix has been
examined as PW-5. She deposed that she was pregnant in the
month of December, 2009 and there was nobody to look after her
in her matrimonial home as her sister-in-law (Jethani) was also
pregnant. Therefore, her mother-in-law asked her to call one of her
sisters from her parental house for house hold work. Accordingly
her sister i.e. the prosecutrix 'V' came to her matrimonial house to
look after her. She delivered a child on 28.12.2009 and on the
occasion of Makar Sankrati on 13.1.2010, her brother came to her
matrimonial house and took the prosecutrix alongwith him. A few
SC No.34/13. Page 11 of 19days latter, she came to know that accused Sushil has taken away
her sister 'V'. Thereafter she talked to 'V' who told her that
accused has taken her to Vaishno Devi Mandir and there he
committed sexual intercourse with her. She also deposed that they
returned after about one week and thereafter her parents and
some relatives had come to her matrimonial house informing what
the accused had done with 'V'. However, accused refused to
solemnize marriage with 'V' and accordingly her parents filed a
complaint against the accused. A leading question was put to her
by the ld. APP with the permission of the Court and she denied
that she has stated in her statement to the Police that accused
used to tease the prosecutrix and had a bad eye upon her. In the
cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, she stated that
her sister 'V' had not made any complaint to her regarding the
behaviour of the accused.
12. The mother of the prosecutrix, Mrs. Seeta has been
examined as PW-2. She deposed that in the month of January,
2009, on the request of mother-in-law of her elder daughter
Hemlata, she sent her younger daughter 'V' i.e. the prosecutrix to
their house to look after Hemlata in post delivery phase. She
further deposed that on 14.1.2009, her son Prithvi Raj brought
back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day, the accused had come
to their house when she as well as her husband was not present
and took away the prosecutrix. After one week the prosecutrix was
left at the house of one of her colleagues by parents and brother
of the accused and therefrom they brought home the prosecutrix.
She also deposed that on the day when accused took prosecutrix
from her house, the parents of the accused came to their house
SC No.34/13. Page 12 of 19during the day and told them that the prosecutrix has been taken
away by their son Sushil. She also deposed that the prosecutrix
had told them that the accused had committed sexual intercourse
with her on the representation that he is her husband and
thereafter they reported the matter to the police.
13. PW-3 is Sh. Chander Prakash, the father of the
prosecutrix. He deposed that on the request of the mother-in-law
of her daughter Hemlata, they had sent their another daughter
prosecutrix 'V' to the matrimonial house of Hemlata to look after
her in the post delivery phase. He deposed that on 14.1.2009, his
son Prithivi Raj brought back the prosecutrix. Thereafter one day
accused had come to their house, when he as well as his wife were
not present, took away the prosecutrix. On the same day, the
brother of the accused namely Modi told him on telephone that
accused Sushil has taken away the prosecutrix. Next day he
alongwith two respectable persons went to the house of the
accused to initiate the talks of marriage of accused Sushil with
prosecutrix but parents of accused Sushil refused the offer of
marriage. After one week prosecutrix was dropped at the house of
one of the colleagues of his wife namely Kishan Dass and
thereafter they brought her home. Prosecutrix told her mother that
accused Sushil had committed sexual intercourse with her against
her will and his wife apprised him about the same. On 30.1.2009,
he made a call at telephone No. 100. PCR officials came to their
house and took him to PS Sadar Bazar where the police officials
advised him to settle the matter with the family of the accused.
Thereafter he alongwith Kishan Dass and one of his colleagues
went to the house of accused with the proposal of marriage
SC No.34/13. Page 13 of 19between accused and the prosecutrix but the parents of the
accused again struck down the proposal. Then he again
approached the Police but no action was taken on his complaint
and thereafter his daughter filed a complaint before the concerned
Magistrate.
14. As per the aforenoted testimony of the prosecutrix,
she was raped by the accused for the first time on 09.01.2009 in
his house when only the prosecutrix and the accused were present
there as all the family members had gone to Safdarjung Hospital
for treatment of the infant daughter of her sister Hemlata. She has
not mentioned about this incident either in her complaint dated
6.3.2009 Ex. PW1/DC or in her statement Ex. PW1/DB or in her
complaint filed before the ld. Magistrate, on the basis of which FIR
has been registered in this case. In the complaint before the ld.
Magistrate, she has simply mentioned that on one day, the
accused went to the extent of out ragging her modesty. No date
has been mentioned therein when the accused indulged in this
act. Even, this sentence cannot be taken to mean that accused
committed rape upon her. Outraging modesty of a woman is a
distinct offence than the offence of rape and the ingredients
constituting the two offences are also absolutely distinct. What
intrigues this court is that in the complaint dated 6.3.2009
addressed to DCP S/W Ex. PW1/DC, the prosecutrix has neither
mentioned about any incident of rape dated 9.1.2009 or any
incident of outraging her modesty on the same date. Further in her
statement, recorded by the Police Official, pursuant to inquiry in
DD No.15A, she has mentioned that the accused committed sexual
intercourse with her in his house on 09.01.2009 at about midnight.
SC No.34/13. Page 14 of 19This statement is in total contrast to what she has deposed before
the Court as PW-1 wherein she has stated that she was raped by
the accused on that date during day time. Further more, it is the
contention of PW-1 that her sister Hem Lata and her mother-in-law
had gone to the Hospital on that date for the treatment of
Hemlata's daughter and she alone was present in the house
alongwith the accused. This assertion of the prosecutrix is falsified
by the testimony of DW-1, a Specialist Pediatrician of Safdarjung
Hospital who has produced the record regarding the details of
children vaccinated on 09.01.2009 in their hospital Ex. DW1/A
which does not show that any child aged just nine days was
brought to the hospital on that date for vaccination. Ironically, she
did not mention about this incident of rape either to her sister
Hemlata or her parents as none of them has deposed about the
same in their testimony before this court. The prosecutrix has
come up with this incident of rape for the first time in her
deposition before this court without furnishing any explanation for
her stoic silence over the same till then.
15. The prosecutrix (PW1) has also deposed that the
accused has teased her earlier also (before 09.1.2009) but she had
resisted him. What intrigues this court is why didn't she offer
resistance on 09.1.2009 also and why she did not complain about
the acts of the accused to her sister Hemlata, who was present in
the same house. Pertinent to mention here that Hemlata (PW5)
has specifically deposed that prosecutrix had not made any
complaint to her against the accused.
16. From the conduct of the prosecutrix, it is difficult to
SC No.34/13. Page 15 of 19believe that she was raped by the accused in his house on
09.1.2009. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this regard is
absolutely untrustworthy and does not inspire any confidence. And
at this point of time, there was no promise or assurance of
marriage from the side of the accused.
17. According to the prosecutrix, the accused held out an
assurance of marriage to her for the first time on 17.1.2009 when
he visited her house and took her photographs as well as school
certificates. This was probably the first meeting between the two
after she was allegedly raped by him on 09.1.2009. What lead her
to believe the words of her rapist that he would marry her, is not
discernible. This time, the usual conduct of the prosecutrix would
have been to atleast inform her parents about the visit of accused
and his assurance of marriage. She did not think it proper to
consult her parents and readily handed over her photograph &
school certificate to the accused. Such conduct of the prosecutrix
also raises serious doubts about the alleged incident of rape and
makes it apparent that she had already decided to marry the
accused, probably out of love for him, although she has denied
having been in love with him.
18. Things did not stop here. The prosecutrix voluntarily
and without any force, threat or promise from the side of accused,
accompanies him on 22.1.2009 and they reach Jammu where they
stayed in various hotels till 28.1.2009 and returned to Delhi on
29.1.2009. the prosecutrix has deposed that she accompanied the
accused with the hope that he is going to solemnize marriage with
her and he told her the arrangements for court marriage have
SC No.34/13. Page 16 of 19been made at Jammu. In Jammu, he put vermilion on her forehead
in the hotel room and declared that they are now married
whereafter they had sexual intercourse many a times. What
wonders the court is what made the prosecutrix accompany the
accused for a run away court marriage. This kind of marriage is
usually resorted to when the boy & girl are in love with each other
and their respective parents are against their alliance. The
conduct of the prosecutrix in accompanying the accused to Jammu
for court marriage demonstrates that she wanted to marry the
accused but her parents were against this marriage. Her longing to
marry the accused appears to be only out of deep love and not on
account of assurance of marriage by the accused.
19. The prosecutrix states that she consented to sexual
intercourse with the accused when he applied vermilion over her
forehead in the hotel room and declared that they are now a
married couple. The prosecutrix was a matured lady aged 24 years
at that time. (Her school record Ex.PW6/A shows her date of birth
as 10.9.1985). She is expected to know that merely putting
vermilion on the head of the girl by the boy does not mean that
they have got married. Moreover, she had been taken to Jammu
for court marriage and therefore, she should not have consented
to sexual intercourse before solemnization of a valid court
marriage.
20. Of late this court has experienced a trend where the
girl says that the boy took her to a room, applied vermilion on her
forehead, put garland around her neck and declared that they are
now husband and wife. Then they indulge in sexual intercourse
SC No.34/13. Page 17 of 19with each other, with the consent of the girl and later on the girl
alleges rape on the false assurance of marriage. This is a very
disturbing trend. The girls in such cases are mostly in the age
group of 19 – 24 years, thus mature enough to understand the
consequences of their acts and not so numb to get carried away
with any representations of the boy. They voluntarily elope with
their lovers to explore the greener pasteurs of bodily pleasure and
on return to their homes, they conveniently fabricate the story of
kidnap and rape in order to escape scolds and harsh treatment
from the parents. It is these false cases which tend to trivialize the
offences of rape and undermine its gravity. A girl of this age
group, even if belonging to a rural area, cannot be believed to be
not knowing how the marriage is performed or what are the
essential ceremonies of a marriage. I am unable to countenance
the argument that a mature girl would believe and consider herself
a wife of the person who has merely applied vermilion on her
forehead and no other rite or ceremony has been performed. The
girls are morally and socially bound not to indulge in sexual
intercourse before a proper marriage and if they do so, it would be
to their peril and they cannot be heard to cry later on that it was
rape. 
21. Coming to the case at hand, it is manifest that the
prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused for a trip to
Jammu and the intercourse between the two was with her free and
well informed consent. 
22. It appears that parents of the prosecutrix were aware
about the love affair between her and the accused. Both PW2 and
SC No.34/13. Page 18 of 19PW3 (parents of prosecutrix) have deposed that they came to
know on the same day i.e. 22.1.2009 that accused has taken away
their daughter. Still they did not report the matter to police and
waited for the return of the two to Delhi on 29.1.2009. Thereafter,
they approached the parents of the accused with a proposal of
marriage of prosecutrix with accused which was turned down by
them. They have nowhere explained why did not they lodge a
complaint with the police till 30.1.2009.
23. The aforesaid discussion reveals that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. The
accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 07.10.2013. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.34/13. Page 19 of 19

Source - http://164.100.52.44/judis_cat/chrseq_dc.aspx

Delhi Court - Every act sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape. Pre-marital sex not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion.

Every act sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape. Pre-marital sex not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion.



IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 109/13.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0287532011.
State Vs.  Ashish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Balwinder Pal,
R/o A-52, Kiran Garden,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 29.8.2011.
FIR No.135 dated 21.5.2011.
U/s. 376/506 IPC.
P.S. Bindapur.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 05.12.2013.
Date of pronouncement : 20.12.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution has chargesheeted the above named
accused for the offences punishable u/s.376/506 IPC.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix
namely 'P' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity)
has submitted a written complaint in P.S. Bindapur on 07.5.2011,
the gist of which is as under :
“I am in relationship with a boy named Ashish
Kumar since July, 2006. His parents were aware about
our relationship and he had promised to get married to
SC No.109/13. Page 1 of 33me. He committed sexual intercourse with me several
times and I had become pregnant somewhere in the
month of July, 2008. I informed him about the same
and asked him to solemnize marriage with me but he
sought some time to convince his family and to marry
his two elder sisters first. He insisted me to abort and
when I refused, he blackmailed me saying that he
would not marry me if I did not abort. Therefore, I got
my pregnancy aborted. All the times, he kept on
promising me that he would marry me after the
marriage of his sisters. When both of his sisters had
got married, I asked him to solemnize marriage with
me but he again requested for some more time. When
I came to know that he is getting married with
someone else, I rushed to his house in Delhi on
09.4.2011. I stayed in his house for 21 days and he
had sexual relations with me at his house several
times during that period. He had taken lakhs of rupees
from me for our marriage. On 29.4.2011, he and his
parents took me to Pathankot (Punjab) to solemnize
my marriage with him but there all the family
members abused, harassed and insulted me. They told
me that since my parents are not alive, there is
nobody to support me and to fight for me. Thereafter,
he took me to Amritsar saying that he will get married
to me there but he left me in front of a gurudwara and
disappeared. I tried to contact him on his mobile
phone as well as on the mobile phone of his father but
both the mobile phones were switched off. From
SC No.109/13. Page 2 of 33Amritsar, I returned to Delhi alone by train on
01.5.2011. When I reached his home, nobody was
there. I have been cheated, harassed and insulted and
hence I request you to take necessary action against
them.”
3. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint of the
prosecutrix, FIR was registered u/s.376/506 IPC and investigation
was handed over to SI Domnica. She recorded statement of the
prosecutrix u/s.161 Cr.PC and got her medically examined in DDU
Hospital on 21.5.2011 vide MLC No.9981/11. Exhibits handed over
by the doctor were seized by her. Prosecutrix was not having in
her possession any document regarding the abortion. On
23.5.2011 she was produced before the Ld. Magistrate, who
recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC. IO collected the school
certificate of the prosecutrix regarding her age which reveals her
date of birth to be 28.3.1989. Accused came to be arrested on
09.6.2011. He was got medically examined in DDU Hospital and
the exhibits handed over by the doctor were seized. All the
exhibits were sent to FSL for forensic examination. After the
completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was prepared and
submitted to the concerned Ld. Magistrate.
4. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions,
Charge u/s.376/506 IPC was framed against the accused on
22.12.2012. Accused abjured his guilt and accordingly prosecution
was called upon to lead its evidence.
5. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to
SC No.109/13. Page 3 of 33establish the guilt of the accused. Ld. APP also tendered in
evidence the FSL results Ex.PA & Ex.PB. The accused was
examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 02.7.2013 wherein he admitted that he
had started friendship with the prosecutrix through Yahoo chat on
internet and used to meet her occasionally but denied that he had
committed sexual intercourse with her at any point of time. He
claimed false implication in this case.
6. The accused has examined himself as DW1 in his
defence. During the course of his testimony, he produced the
printout of various E-mails and chats which had taken place
between him and the prosecutrix and which have been marked as
Mark-A to Mark-S. The accused also examined his wife as DW2.
DW3 is the Senior Executive of Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd., who deposed
that E-mail Id “ashishkumar84@yahoo.com” was generated by Mr.
Ashish Kumar on 15.9.2004 and he had provided his alternate Email address as “mrashishkumar84@gmail.com”. However, the
witness deposed that his office is unable to provide any date
regarding E-mail Id “diya_spirit@yahoo.com” as the same is
registered in US Domain and not in Indian Domain. He proved his
affidavit in this regard as Ex.DW3/B. DW4 is the Manager
(Administration and HR), M./s. Keppel Land International Limited,
Bangluru, who deposed that E-mail Id “parvati@elitahomes.com”
was allotted by their company to Ms. Parvati during the course of
her employment with the company and further stated that he has
not brought the records pertaining to said E-mail Id as those have
already been erased by the company. DW5 is Associate Manager
Facilities, Infosys Limited, who deposed that the records pertaining
to official E-mail account allotted to accused Ashish has already
SC No.109/13. Page 4 of 33been deleted from the records and are not available with the
company. He proved his detailed affidavit in this regard as
Ex.DW5/A.
7. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and
have perused the entire record.
8. Ld. APP vehemently argued that accused has deceived
the prosecutrix by making her to submit herself to intercourse with
him on the promise that he would marry her which promise he
never intended to fulfill. She submitted that it is evident from the
testimony of the prosecutrix that she gave consent for sexual
intercourse with the accused only on the promise and assurance of
the accused that he would marry her at any cost. According to
her, the accused obtained consent of the prosecutrix to the sexual
intercourse by deceit and fraud and hence he has committed the
offence of rape. She further submitted that the printouts of E-mails
and chats Mark-A to Mark-S produced by the accused during his
testimony cannot be looked into as those are not accompanied by
certificate u/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act and for the reason that
those have not been put to the prosecutrix in her cross
examination so as to elicit her comments regarding those.
However, she further submitted that even if these E-mails and
chats are read in evidence, these support the case of the
prosecution that the accused had been assuring and promising the
prosecutrix at every moment that he would marry her. According
to her, the accused is liable to be held guilty for the offence of
rape.
SC No.109/13. Page 5 of 339. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused
vehemently argued that there is no iota of evidence on record to
suggest that the accused at any point of time promised the
prosecutrix that he would marry her. He submitted that the
prosecutrix has mentioned neither in her written complaint to the
police nor in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC that in her examination
in chief that she consented to intercourse with the accused only on
getting of assurance from the accused that he would marry her.
He further submitted that the prosecutrix has not mentioned in her
examination in chief the date when the sexual intercourse took
place between the two for the first time and when the accused
made promise to her for the first time that he would marry her. He
submits that even if it be assumed that accused had promised the
prosecutrix that he would marry her, still there is no evidence on
record that he had done so before engaging him in sexual
intercourse with her. He further submitted that the E-mails and
chats between the accused and the prosecutrix Mark-A to Mark-S
are admissible in evidence as they are supported by the affidavit
of the accused, who had taken these printouts from the computer
and therefore the affidavit of the accused can be read as a
certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that
the accused was not obligedto confront the prosecutrix by these
E-mails and chats during her cross examination. According to him,
the accused is liable to be acquitted.
10. The testimony of the prosecutrix is the most vital and
important piece of evidence for the prosecution in the instant
case. She has been examined as PW8. She has disclosed her age
as 27 years. She deposed that she had started chatting with the
SC No.109/13. Page 6 of 33accused on internet in April/May, 2006 and ultimately both
became friends. They met each other for the first time in Banglore
on 14.7.2006 and enquired about each other job, family status etc.
At that time, accused was working with M/s. Infosys and was
posted at Mysore. Thereafter the accused used to visit Banglore
and met her at her house on weekends and holidays. After
sometime, the accused expressed his interest in solemnizing the
marriage with her. He promised her that he would marry her after
the marriage of his two elder sisters, one of whom was divorcee.
He expressed his inability to get engaged to her but convinced her
that he would definitely marry her. He introduced her to his
parents and sisters and made her to talk to them on phone from
Banglore. She further deposed that in the mid of November, 2006
she alongwith accused went to her native place in Hyderabad to
meet her parents. Accused convinced her that he would persuade
his parents and her sister also that he is going to marry her. After
returning from Hyderabad, accused started showing physical
interest in her and asked her to engage into sexual intercourse
with him but she showed her disinclination for the same. She told
her that they should wait uptill marriage but the accused provoked
her mentally to such an extent that she had to give in. He told her
that he is going to be her husband and there is nothing wrong to
have sexual intercourse with him. After intense mental and
physical provocation, she engaged into sexual intercourse with
him many a times, as a result of which she had become pregnant
in the month of July, 2008 and later on had to abort the same at
the instance of the accused. She further deposed that in February,
2009 accused got transferred to Pune office of Infosys. She went
to meet him in Pune in August, 2009, stayed with him for three
SC No.109/13. Page 7 of 33days and thereafter accused committed intercourse with her. She
again went to Pune in November, 2009 and stayed with the
accused for two days. Every time when she met the accused, he
convinced and assured her that he would marry her. Whenever
she asked him about the marriage, he used to tell her that his
sister's marriage is fixed for May, 2010 and they should wait till
that time. She had also helped the accused financially by
transferring a huge amount to his bank account. She further
deposed that in June, 2010 the accused moved to Delhi and told
her that since both of his sisters have been married, it is turn for
their marriage. She came to Delhi on 07.8.2010 and stayed in the
house of the accused for two days. He introduced her to his
parents and also had intercourse with her. Accused promised and
assured her in front of her parents that he is going to marry her. In
November,2010 she again visited the house of accused in Delhi to
fix the date of marriage but this time his parents told her that
accused is Manglik and they should wait for his marriage till he
completes 27 years of age. She decided to wait for few more
months till the accused completed 27 years of age. On return from
Delhi, she came to know from other sources that the parents of
the accused are searching for some other girl for the accused. She
confronted the accused with the same but he denied all this saying
that he cannot get married to any other girl till he completes 27
years of age. She again came to the house of the accused in Delhi
on 09.4.2011 and stayed there for 21 days but during this period
she was shocked to see the behaviour of the accused's parents
who told her to go back and wait further. She was thrown out of
the house by the parents of the accused in the night of 09.4.2011
itself and accused also slapped her but later on she was allowed to
SC No.109/13. Page 8 of 33come inside the house and stay there. During this period of 21
days also accused kept on assuring that he is going to marry her.
During that period also, they had sexual intercourse with each
other. On 16.4.2011 accused took her to Dwarka Court and
introduced her to a lawyer namely Deepak Singh Sindhu saying
that he is planning a court marriage with her. They filled up
marriage application form and accused paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-to the lawyer as fee. After some days, accused told her that they
should not go for a court marriage as he is the only son of his
parents and his parents want a proper marriage to solemnize at
their native place in Pathankot, Punjab. She further deposed that
on 29.4.2011, she alongwith accused, his parents and his cousin
Happy went to Pathankot, Punjab, in train and reached there in the
morning of 30.4.2011. The uncle of the accused and his aunt came
to receive them at railway station and took them to Hotel Staywell
near the railway station. Soon after they checked into the hotel,
accused as well as his parents started showing true colours. They
abused her, beat her and used foul and filthy language with her.
Accused also gagged her mouth when she tried to shout. Accused
told her that he was only enacting a drama and whatever
happened between them should be forgotten. In the afternoon of
30.4.2011 accused and his cousin Happy took her to Golden
Temple, Amritsar, saying that accused would marry her there.
They reached Amritsar at 6 p.m. and in front of the Golden Temple
also, accused assured her that he would marry her. He told her to
close her eyes and pray to the God. She closed her eyes and
started praying. As soon as, she opened her eyes, she found that
the accused and his cousin had left and she was alone. She dialled
mobile number of the accused and his parents but all were
SC No.109/13. Page 9 of 33switched off. She called the brother-in-law of the accused who
stays at Banglore but he also feigned ignorance about the
accused. She stayed at Amritsar for the night and next day came
to Delhi. She directly went to the house of the accused but it was
locked and the neighbours did not know anything about the
accused and his family members. She stayed at Delhi for some
days and tried to contact the accused but did not succeed.
Ultimately, she visited P.S. Bindapur and submitted a written
complaint, on the basis of which FIR was registered. She was
produced before a Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s.
164 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/A. According to her, accused was arrested from
his house in her presence on 09.6.2011 vide arrest memo
Ex.PW2/A.
11. In her cross examination, prosecutrix (PW8) deposed
that she had been doing job with M/s. Keppel Land international
Limited, Banglore, since the year 2005 and her job was of
secretarial and administrative nature. She joined UB Group in
August, 2011. She has been residing independently as a tenant in
Banglore since the year 2003 and was paying a sum of Rs.5,000/-as rent per month for one room set. She further deposed that they
(accused and the prosecutrix) had intercourse for the first time in
the month of November, 2006 at the house of the accused at
Banglore. She deposed that the accused had showed interest in
getting marriage to her at the time of their first meeting itself i.e.
14.7.2006. Thereafter he slowly used to put it in her mind that he
would marry her. In the month of August, 2006, he promised that
he would marry her but did not give any specific time frame for
marriage. She met the parents of the accused for the first time in
SC No.109/13. Page 10 of 33September, 2008 at the time marriage of his elder sister at
Banglore. She deposed that the purpose of visit of accused to her
native house at Hyderabad in November, 2006 was to assure her
family members about their marriage and nothing else. She
explained that by his statement in the examination in chief that
the accused mentally provoked her to have sexual intercourse
with him, she meant that he convinced her as well as her family
members that he would marry her in any event and there is
nothing wrong in having sexual intercourse between them before
the marriage. She consented to the sexual intercourse with him
only because of his promise of marriage even though he did not
give any definite time frame for marriage and told her that
marriage would be possible only after the marriage of his two
sisters. The accused used to tell her that if she is not going to
satisfy her husband i.e. him, where will he go. A specific question
was put to her by the Ld. Cross examining Counsel that if she had
any kind of fear that if she did not engage in sexual intercourse
with the accused, he would not marry her or that she had any kind
of temptation that he will marry her only if she had intercourse
with him. She replied that the only reason for which she consented
to have sexual intercourse is that she had become convinced that
he would marry her. She further deposed that after she had come
to know about her pregnancy, she informed the accused, who
advised her to abort the same. Accordingly, she visited the clinic
of Dr. Sumangla near her residence at Banglore and consumed the
tablets which were prescribed by the doctor. The tablets were
purchased by the accused but she did not remember exactly how
many tablets did she consume. She deposed that she had gone to
Pune to meet the accused in August, 2009, November, 2009 and
SC No.109/13. Page 11 of 33April, 2010. The accused did not come to Banglore from Pune to
meet her. In Pune, she stayed with the accused at his residence.
12. From the aforesaid testimony of the prosecutrix, it is
evident that she was about 20 years old in the year 2006 when
she started friendship with the accused. She was well educated
and doing a job of secretarial and administrative nature with a
reputed company of Banglore. She was an independent lady and
had been residing on rent alone in Banglore since the year 2003.
She had strong inclination towards the accused and used to spend
time willingly with him. She used to visit his place of residence off
and on, even in Pune and Delhi and spent nights with him. The
physical relations between her and the accused had developed
with her consent as admittedly, she had neither offered any
resistence nor had complained to anybody about the acts of the
accused. She used to exchange E-mails with the accused and used
to chat with him and the accused had been giving her assurance
that he would marry her but never gave any specific time frame
for the same. She continuously used to have physical relations
with the accused till the year 2011.
13. To rebut the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix
against him, the accused has entered the witness box himself as
DW1. He disclosed his aged as 29 years and deposed that he
joined Infosys in May, 2006 as System Engineer and remained
there till June, 2010, when he joined Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.
He was staying in Banglore from October, 2006 to February, 2009.
He deposed that initially he was chatting with the prosecutrix at
her E-mail ID Diya_spirit@yahoo.com. She has sent her
SC No.109/13. Page 12 of 33photographs through E-mails on 05.7.2006 and 10.7.2006 but he
did not reply his E-mails. After a few days, the prosecutrix made a
call on his mobile number saying that they should start friendship
as they share common views. As per her request, they met at
Banglore bus stand in the end of July, 2006 for the first time when
he was coming to Delhi. She told him that she is in a depressed
state of mind as a person named Umesh with whom she was in a
relationship had got married. Thereafter, she kept on calling him
regularly and also used to come to meet him at his office. He
deposed that he never promised to marry the prosecutrix. He also
did not convince her parents about their marriage at the time of
their visit to her native village. According to him, it was the
prosecutrix, who had been insisting upon him to marry her but he
had told her categorically that his focus is on his career and not on
marriage. He also deposed that the prosecutrix told him that her
friend Rupa had found a match for her but she turned down the
proposal as she wanted to marry him. At that time also, he
rejected the marriage proposal. He deposed that the prosecutrix
kept on calling him and during those calls, she was alluring him to
have physical relations with her. On 14.5.2009 she told him that
she is going to marry a boy named Vikram in Trichi in Tamilnadu.
Thereafter, Vikram assaulted her physically and she had sent the
photographs in this regard. She also demanded Rs.50,000/- from
him but he did not give money to her. Thereafter the prosecutrix
again started insisting upon him to marry her by saying that she
wants to marry him only. He further deposed that in January, 2009
when the prosecutrix had called him for a farewell lunch to her
residence in Banglore on the occasion of his transfer to Pune, she
administered some sedatives to him and thereafter started
SC No.109/13. Page 13 of 33tempting him for physical relations but he resisted her temptations
and no sexual intercourse took place. Thereafter, the prosecutrix
again started harassing him by transferring the amount of Rs.
1,20,000/- to his account without any intimation to him and
without disclosing her account number. However, with some
difficulty, he got to know about the account number of the
prosecutrix and deposited the amount back in her account. In
December, 2009 he informed her about his engagement in Punjab.
She again transferred a sum of Rs.1 Lac in his account and told
him that he could not return this amount to her and also closed
her bank account. He submitted an application to his bank i.e.
ICICI Bank asking them as to from which account this sum of Rs.1
Lac had been transferred to his account and vide communication
dated 23.9.2010 (Ex.DW1/C), he was informed that this amount
has been transferred from bank account no.01190023242. When
he made inquiries from the prosecutrix about her account number,
she started alleging that he made her to abort her pregnancy in
the years 2009 and 2010. Again after one week, she transferred
further sum of Rs.1 Lac to his account and then closed her
account. He returned this sum of money also to her. He further
deposed that the prosecutrix got to know from some common
friend that his marriage has been fixed for 10.5.2011 and she
came to their house in Delhi on 09.4.2011. She told the accused
that she had come in search of a job and is staying at Khanpur.
Her advocate Sh. Deepak Singh Sindhu telephoned him on
16.4.2010 saying that he had not returned money to her and in
that regard, he should meet him in the court. He showed all the
transactions to the said advocate and the matter was settled. She
requested them to take her to Punjab for attending the marriage
SC No.109/13. Page 14 of 33ceremony. Accordingly, his parents, his cousin Happy and the
prosecutrix reached Pathankot on 30.4.2011. The parents of
Happy received them at the railway station and they checked in
Hotel Staywell. His would be wife and her parents had also come
there. After taking meals they all went to Golden Temple. In the
bus, the prosecutrix was sitting alongwith his wife and she told her
that they (prosecutrix and the accused) are already married and
were residing in Banglore as husband and wife. His wife informed
her parents about the same and in the meanwhile, prosecutrix ran
away from there. His parents-in-law called off the marriage and
insulted them. After few days, he alongwith his parents went to
his in-laws house, showed all the E-mails to them and convinced
them that there was no relationship of husband and wife between
him and the prosecutrix. They got convinced and ultimately, their
marriage took place on 24.5.2011. He also deposed that the
prosecutrix has filed a false complaint against him with the
intention that he would not be able to marry at Delhi and would be
constrained to marry her. According to him, the prosecutrix had
also tried to hack his E-mail Id while he was in custody in this case
and after he was released on bail, the prosecutrix called his
parents and demanded Rs.20 Lacs from them or otherwise, she
would file a case against them at Banglore. She has filed a false
complaint against them at Banglore also. He filed on record the
printouts of E-mails and Chats exchanged between him and the
prosecutrix, which are Mark-A to Mark-S.
14. In the cross examination, he denied that he had
promised to marry the prosecutrix in any of the meetings with her.
He also denied that he had assured her parents that he would
SC No.109/13. Page 15 of 33marry her. He deposed that it was on the insistence of the
prosecutrix that he alongwith his two friends visited her house in
her native place. He denied that E-mails Mark-F and Mark-S are
fabricated and manipulated. He also denied that the prosecutrix
had become pregnant from his loin in July, 2008 and he asked her
to terminate the pregnancy or otherwise, he would not marry her.
He deposed that upon his transfer to Pune on 07.2.2009 he had
not apprised the prosecutrix about his Pune address. He admitted
that the prosecutrix had come to Pune in August, 2009 but denied
that she had visited his residence or stayed with him for three
days or that they had physical relations during those three days.
According to him, they met in a restaurant in Pune. He admitted
that the prosecutrix had again come to Pune in November, 2009
but denied that she had stayed with him at Pune. According to
him, they met at Sahaj Yoga temple and other public places. He
also denied that the prosecutrix visited his house in Delhi on
07.8.2010 and he introduced her to his parents but denied that
she stayed in their house for two days. According to him, she left
their house on the same day. He further admitted that the
prosecutrix had visited their house again in November, 2010 and
then on 09.4.2011 but denied that she stayed with them for 21
days. According to him, she stayed in their house for about 4 or 5
days and he did not extend any promise of marriage during those
days and there was no physical relations between them during
those days. He also deposed that his father Sh. Balwinder Pal has
filed complaint against the prosecutrix before a Ld. Magistrate in
Dwarka Court, New Delhi, regarding demand of Rs.20 Lacs made
by her after he was released on bail. He denied all other
suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP.
SC No.109/13. Page 16 of 3315. From the aforesaid testimony of the accused, it
appears that there had been no sexual relations between him and
the prosecutrix at any point of time. It is also evident that the
prosecutrix had been pestering him for sexual intercourse but he
had been keeping off from the same deliberately as he wanted to
focus on his career. He had never made any promise or assurance
to the prosecutrix that he would marry her and it is the prosecutrix
who had been time and again telling him that she wants to marry
him and for this reason, she had turned down a proposal of
marriage from her friend Rupa. It is also evident that the
prosecutrix had once told him that she is going to marry a boy
Vikram in Trichi in Tamilnadu but that boy assaulted her physically
and the relations became sour. The prosecutrix had been
transferring money to the bank account of the accused time and
again without any demand from him and without his information,
probably to harass him and to create some evidence against him.
She never stayed with the accused at his residence at Banglore or
at Pune. She stayed in his house at Delhi only once and that too
for just 4 or 5 days. She knew that the accused is going to marry a
girl in Punjab on 10.5.2011 and had accompanied his family to
Pathankot on 30.4.2011 to attend the marriage ceremony and
there she told the accused's would be wife that she is already
married to the accused and they have been residing at Banglore
as husband and wife.
16. Undoubtedly, in cases involving offence of rape, the
testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence as
well as reliable and inspiring confidence requires no corroboration
SC No.109/13. Page 17 of 33and court may convict the accused on the basis of her sole
testimony. She is undoubtedly a competent witness u/s.118 of
Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is
attached to that of an injured in case of physical violence.
However, if for some reason, the court is hesitant to place implicit
reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for some
other evidence on record, which may lend assurance to her
testimony, short of corroboration required in case of accomplice. If
the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix
at its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
circumstantially which would lend assurance about her testimony.
It also needs mention that even in cases of rape the onus is always
on the prosecution to prove affirmatively all the ingredients of the
offence which it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is
not the duty of the defence to explain why and how the victim and
other witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. The
prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take the
support from the weakness of the case of defence. However, the
great suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral
belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the
accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
legally admissible evidence and the material on record, the
conviction cannot be ordered. There is initial presumption of
innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home
the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused
is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt.
17. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges that the
accused obtained consent of the prosecution for sexual
SC No.109/13. Page 18 of 33intercourse on the basis of false promise of marriage and therefore
the consent of the prosecution cannot be termed as free or fair,
the same being a tainted one and hence the accused has
committed offence of rape.
18. The Supreme Court considered this issue at length in
case of Uday vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) JCC 506, AIR
2003 SC 1639and held as under :
“It therefore appears that the consensus of judicial
opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given
by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person
with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he
would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be
given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is
not a fact within the meaning of the Code. We are
inclined to agree with this view, but we must add that
there is no strait jacket formula for determining
whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual
intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a
misconception of fact. In the ultimate analysis, the
tests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidance
to the judicial mind while considering a question of
consent, but the Court must, in each case, consider
the evidence before it and the surrounding
circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because
each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a
bearing on the question whether the consent was
voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact.
It may also weigh the evidence keeping in view the
fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove
each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of
consent being one of them.”
19. Similarly, in Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar
Verma vs. State of Bihar & anr., (2007) 7 SCC 413, the
SC No.109/13. Page 19 of 33Supreme Court observed as under :
“The failure to keep the promise at a future uncertain
date due to reasons not very clear on the evidence
does not always amount to a misconception of fact at
the inception of the act itself. In order to come within
the meaning of misconception of fact, the fact must
have an immediate relevance. The matter would have
been different if the consent was obtained by creating
a belief that they were already married. In such a case
the consent could be said to result from a
misconception of fact. But here the fact alleged is a
promise to marry. We do not know when. If a full
grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on
a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in
such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act of
promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by
misconception of fact. Section 90 IPC cannot be called
in aid in such a case to pardon the act of the girl and
fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the Court
can be assured that from the very inception the
accused never really intended to marry her.”
20. In Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar,
AIR 2005 SC 203, it has been observed :
“20. 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
SC No.109/13. Page 20 of 33offender, 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.”
21. The Supreme Court again in Deepak Gulati vs. State
of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.2322/10 decided on
20.5.2013, held as under :
“Consent may be express or implied, coerced or
misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit.
Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by
deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the
good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction
between rape and consensual sex and in a case like
this, the court must very carefully examine whether
the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim,
or had mala fide motives, and had made a false
promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the
latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.
There is a distinction between the mere breach of a
promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the
court must examine whether there was made, at an
early stage a false promise of marriage by the
accused; and whether the consent involved was given
after wholly, understanding the nature and
consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a
case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
accused, and not solely on account of
misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or
where an accused on account of circumstances which
he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his
control, was unable to marry her, despite having every
intention to do so. Such cases must be treated
differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only
if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of
the accused was mala fide, and that he had
clandestine motives.”
SC No.109/13. Page 21 of 3322. In the case at hand, the prosecutrix in her complaint
dated 07.5.2011 to the police, on the basis of which FIR has been
registered, has nowhere stated when did the accused extend
promise of marriage to her for the first time and when they had
sexual intercourse with each other for the first time. It is not clear
from the said complaint whether physical relations between the
two started before the accused promised her to marry or after
that. In her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/A she has stated that
they developed physical relations for the first time in the year
2008. There is no mention of any promise of marriage in that
statement. She has simply mentioned that the accused gained her
trust and stated that they will get married after the marriage of his
two sisters.
23. In the examination in chief also, the prosecutrix has
not mentioned when did the accused extend promise of marriage
to her for the first time and when did they engage into physical
relations for the first time. It is when she was questioned in this
regard in the cross examination that she stated that the accused
showed interest in getting married to her at the time of their first
meeting itself on 14.7.2006 and then in the month of August, 2006
he promised that he would marry her but did not give any specific
time frame for the same. In the cross examination, she stated that
they had sexual intercourse for the first time in the month of
November, 2006. This is totally contrary to her statement u/s.164
Cr.PC Ex.PW4/A where she had mentioned that they had physical
relations for the first time in the year 2008. The first time when the
SC No.109/13. Page 22 of 33accused committed sexual intercourse with her has been
described by the prosecutrix in her examination in chief as under:
“After returning from Hyderabad, we continued to
meet each other and the accused started showing
physical interest in me. He started telling me to
engage into sexual intercourse with him but I showed
my disinclination for the same. I told him that we
should wait uptill our marriage. However, he provoked
me mentally to such an extent that I had to give in.
He told me that he is going to be my husband and
there is nothing wrong if I engaged into sexual
intercourse with him. Ultimately after intense mental
and physical provocation, I compellingly engaged into
sexual intercourse with him many a times.”
24. The aforesaid portion of the testimony of the
prosecutrix is patently an improvement over her previous
statements recorded during the course of investigation. In those
statements, she did not state that the accused obtained her
consent for sexual intercourse after intense mental and physical
provocation. Even if the aforersaid portion of her testimony is
taken on its face value, it does not show that the accused obtained
her consent to the sexual intercourse solely on the basis of
promise to marry. A promise to marry is totally different from the
mental and physical provocation, as mentioned by the prosecution
in her testimony. If a boy engages a girl, whom he loves, in
sexually explicit talks and during those talks touches her sensitive
body parts so that she becomes sexually active and consents to
SC No.109/13. Page 23 of 33sexual intercourse, it can be said that the boy provoked the girl
mentally and physically to have physical relations with him but it
cannot be said that he obtained her consent by any
misconception, fraud or any other promise. Mental and physical
provocation is altogether different from a promise to marry and
the two cannot be equated. There is no categorical statement of
the prosecutrix in her examination in chief that she gave consent
for sexual intercourse with the accused only on the basis of her
promise to marry or on account of any threat or pressure from the
side of the accused. It is evident that she did not offer any
resistance and did not try to leave that place. I consider it not
proper for a girl to engage in sexual intercourse with a boy who
simply tells her that he is going to be her husband and there is
nothing wrong in engaging her into sexual intercourse with him. It
was for the girl in such circumstances to weigh the pros and cons
of the intended act and to decide whether or not she should
submit her a body to the boy.
25. It is important to note her that the prosecutrix, in none
of her statements mentions the place where the accused held out
promise of his marriage to her for the first time or where they had
physical relations with each other for the first time.
26. The prosecutrix had herself mentioned in each of her
statement that the accused did not give her any specific time
frame of marriage. Therefore, the prosecutrix was having no
guarantee when the accused would marry her and in these
circumstances, she should have been more circumspect before
giving her consent for sexual intercourse.
SC No.109/13. Page 24 of 3327. The statement of the prosecutrix in her cross
examination that she consented to have sexual intercourse with
the accused only for the reason that she had become convinced
that she would marry her does not appeal to any reason in view of
what has been discussed herein above. I fail to understand how
the prosecutrix had got convinced in just two or three months
after her first meeting with the accused that he would definitely
marry her. I myself do not feel convinced and satisfied that the
prosecutrix was misled by any promise or utterance of the accused
and she gave her consent to the sexual intercourse with him
because of the same. It appears that the prosecutrix being a
mature, educated and employed lady, understood the nature and
consequence of sexual indulgence with the accused and agreed to
have sexual intercourse with him only on account of her love and
passion for him and not solely on account of any alleged
misrepresentation.
28. Coming to the printouts of E-mails exchanged between
the parties and their Chats on the internet, filed by the accused at
the time of his deposition as DW1. These have been marked as
Mark-A to Mark-S. These were not exhibited at that time as this
court was in doubt whether these have been sufficiently proved as
per the Indian Evidence Act. These include transcripts of internet
chats between the prosecutrix and the accused dated 27.11.2006,
07.12.2006, 14.5.2008, 09.6.2008 and 24.9.2010 from their
respective E-mails ID parureddi@gmail.com and
mrashishkumar84@gamil.com. These also include transcripts of Emails dated 16.1.2007, 15.6.2007, 30.11.2007, 09.1.2009,
SC No.109/13. Page 25 of 3317.2.2009, 11.2.2009 and 17.2.2009, sent by prosecutrix from her
aforesaid E-mail ID to the accused on his aforesaid E-mail ID.
These also include transcripts of E-mails dated 12.2.2009 sent by
the prosecutrix from her another E-mail ID
parvathi@elitahomes.com to the accused and E-mail dated
12.7.2010 sent by the prosecutrix from her another E-mail Id
sahajparvati@gmail.com to the accused. No question has been put
to DW1 in his cross examination regarding authenticity and
genuineness of the aforesaid E-mail as well as internet chats. It is
manifest that the prosecution does not dispute that the two Emails IDs referred to in these E-mails and internet chats do not
belong to and were not operated by the prosecutrix.
29. Normally, in order to prove an electric record, the
requirements of section 65B of the Evidence Act have to be
complied with but there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence
in their proof under the provisions of sections 63 and 65 of the
Evidence Act. It is a matter of common knowledge that E-mails and
internet chats are stored in very huge servers of internet service
provider and those servers cannot be produced in the court.
Therefore when a witness produces the printouts of the E-mails
and internet chats in the court certifying that these have been
obtained truthfully and correctly, the printout documents
admissible as secondary evidence in view of section 63 of the
Evidence Act, unless these are disputed by the other side. Section
63 reads as under :
“63. Secondary evidence. - Secondary evidence
means and includes -SC No.109/13. Page 26 of 33(1) certified copies given under the provisions
hereinafter contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical
processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of
the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the
parties who did not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document
given by some person who has himself seen it.”
30. In this regard, I may profitably refer to following
passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as
2005 (11) SCC 600, State vs. Navjot Sandhu:
“According to section 63, secondary evidence means
and includes, among other things, “Copies made from
the original by mechanical process which in
themselves ensures the accuracy of the copy, and
copies compared with such copies”. Section 65
enables secondary evidence of the contents of a
document to be adduced if the original is of such
nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute
that the information contained in the call records is
stored on huge servers which cannot be easily moved
and produced in the court. That is what the High Court
has also observed at page 276. Hence printouts taken
from the computers/servers by mechanical process
and certified by a responsible officer of the service
providing company can be led in evidence through a
witness who can identify the signature of the
certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based
on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the
compliance with the requirements of section 65B,
SC No.109/13. Page 27 of 33which is a provision dealing with the admissibility of
electronic records, there is no bar to adducing
secondary evidence under the other provisions of the
Evidence Act, namely, sections 63 and 65. It may be
that the certificate containing the details in sub
section (4) of section 65B is not filed in the instant
case, but that does not mean that the secondary
evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such
evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned
in the relevant provisions, namely sections 63 and
65.”
31. In the instant case, the E-mails and internet chats
Mark-A to Mark-S produced by the accused during the course of his
testimony have not been disputed from the side of the
prosecution. DW1 in his testimony has certified their correctness
and accuracy. Therefore, I am of the opinion, those have been
proved as per law and I hereby mark them as Ex.J1 (colly).
32. The E-mails and internet chats between the
prosecutrix and the accused tell a totally different story. It is
manifest from these that in fact, it was the prosecutrix, who was
insisting upon the accused to have sexual intercourse with her and
the accused was not inclined to the same. It is also apparent from
these E-mails and chats that the prosecutrix was not sure whether
or not the accused would marry her and still she was pestering
him for physical relations. The contents of these E-mails and
internet chats totally contradict the version of the prosecutrix and
destroy the prosecution case in totality. In fact, these advance the
defence taken by the accused that he did not engage into sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix at any point of time and had
never promised to marry her and he as well as the prosecutrix
were merely friends. These E-mails and internet chats corroborate
SC No.109/13. Page 28 of 33the testimony of DW1, which has been already noticed hereinabove.
33. There is not even a slightest indication in the aforesaid
E-mails and internet chats between the accused and the
prosecutrix that the accused had held out any promise of marriage
to her and she consented to sexual intercourse with the accused
only for that promise and in fact, sexual intercourse had taken
place between the two. It is another thing that the prosecutric had
the impression that the accused also loves and intends to marry
her. The conduct of the accused may have given rise to such
impression in the mind of the prosecutrix but that alone is not
sufficient to hold that the consent of the prosecutrix for
intercourse with the accused was not voluntary. There is nothing
in these E-mails or internet chats to demonstrate that the accused
had assured her on any point of time that he would marry her. If,
in fact, the prosecutrix had consented to sexual intercourse with
the accused only on later's promise of marriage, she would have
said so in these E-mails. She has not mentioned even a word in
these E-mails or in internet chats about any promise of marriage
held out to her by the accused.
34. Now even if it be assumed to be true that the accused
at some point of time had held out a promise of marriage to the
prosecutrix and the prosecutrix indulged in intercourse with the
accused on such promise, I wonder how the intercourse between
the two in such circumstances would amount to rape. 
35. In my opinion, every act sexual intercourse between
SC No.109/13. Page 29 of 33two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not
become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by
the boy. When a grown up, educated and office going woman
subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on
the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her
own peril. She must be taken to understand the consequences of
her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy
would fulfill his promise. He may or may not do so. She must
understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is
immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in
the world allows pre-marital sex.
36. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Jayanti Rani
Panda Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 1984 Cri.L.J. 1535
observed that in order to come within the meaning of
misconception of fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance.
It was also observed that if a fully grown up girl consents to the
act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues
to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act
of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by
misconception of fact and it was held that Section 90 IPC can not
be invoked unless the court can be assured that from the inception
accused never intended to marry her.
37. However it can not be said that in no case, having
sexual intercourse with a girl on the basis of a promise to marry
would amount to commission of rape. Every such case has to
examined on its individual facts and attending circumstances. The
Supreme Court in Yella Grinivasa Roa Vs. State of A.P.,
SC No.109/13. Page 30 of 332006(3) JCC 1623held that if it is shown that since the very
inception of making the promise, the accused did not intend to
marry her and the prosecutrix extends her consent to have sexual
intercourse with him, only on the strength of such
misrepresentation made to her, and thereby forms a
misconception of fact that the accused was definitely going to
marry her, it would amount to commission of rape. 
38. In Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (supra)before the
Supreme Court, a friendship had developed between the
prosecutrix and the appellant. When the appellant proposed to
marry her, the prosecutrix told him that since they belonged to
different castes, their marriage is not possible. In these
circumstances the Supreme Court was of the view that the
consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a
person with whom she was deeply in love on a promise of
marriage, can not be said to be given under a misconception of
fact. The court further held that for determining whether consent
given by the prosecutrix was voluntary or under a misconception
of fact, no straight jacket formula can be laid down but following
factors stand out:-1. Where a girl was of 19 years of age and had sufficient
intelligence to understand the significance and moral
quality of the act she was consenting to
2. She was conscious of the fact that her marriage was
difficult on account of caste considerations.
3. It was difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge the
prosecutrix had consented in consequence of a
SC No.109/13. Page 31 of 33misconception of fact arising from his promise and 
4. There was no evidence to prove conclusively that the
appellant never intended to marry the prosecutrix.
39. In the instant case also, the prosecutrix was 20 years
old in the year 2006 when she started friendship with the accused
and hence a mature girl. She was well educated and doing a job of
secretarial and administrative nature with a reputed company of
Banglore. She was an independent lady and had been residing on
rent alone in Banglore since the year 2003. Hence, I consider that
she was intelligent enough to understand moral quality and
consequences of her act and there were no chances of their being
misled by any assurance given to her by the accused. There is no
evidence on record to show that she consented to sexual
intercourse with the accused only on the later's promise of
marriage and otherwise, she would not have given her consent for
the same. In fact, there is evidence on record in the form of Emails and internet chats between the two (Ex.J1) that prosecutrix
had been pestering and inducing the accused to have sexual
intercourse with her. 
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I feel that the
prosecution has failed to prove that sexual intercourse had taken
place between the prosecutrix and the accused and the consent of
the prosecutrix to the same was obtained by the accused by any
misconception of fact. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against the accused.
SC No.109/13. Page 32 of 3341. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is
hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 20.12.2013. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.109/13. Page 33 of 33

Source - http://164.100.52.44/judis_cat/chrseq_dc.aspx (Page -6)