The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man charged with the rape of his girlfriend observing that mere souring of relationship after years of Courtship can't be tagged as a 'False Promise to Marry'.
The single-judge bench of Justice Bharti Dangre further remarked that there is a distinction between a mere breach of promise and the failure to fulfill a false promise of marriage, which must be examined in such cases.
Brief Facts of the Case
The criminal revision is being filed in lieu of a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix claimed that she and the accused were introduced through the Orkut Website in 2008, and developed a friendship. They used to meet whenever she visited Mumbai. In 2013, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix. Both the accused and prosecutrix families were aware of their relationship and agreed to their marriage. She further stated that whenever the couple met, the accused tried to establish a physical relationship by consent or force.
The prosecutrix claims that she consented to the intercourse based on the promise of the accused to solemnise the marriage. Although, when the prosecutrix asked the accused, the accused refused to marry her and they started residing separately. She alleges that the accused sent her and her family obscene messages via the Internet and that she was physically and mentally abused. The complaint was filed under sections 376, 323 IPC and section 67 IT Act.
Contentions of the Parties
The prosecutrix claims that she engaged in a physical relationship with the accused based on his promise to marry her, whether consensually or forcefully. She further alleges that after their separation, the accused sent obscene messages to her and her family online, and subjected her to physical and mental abuse.
On the other hand, the accused argues that the prosecutrix, being an adult at the time of their relationship, was aware of the consequences of her actions. Over the course of nearly 8 years, there were multiple instances of sexual intercourse between them, not all of which were preceded by the accused's promise of marriage. The prosecutrix was emotionally and physically capable of understanding the consequences of her actions, according to the accused's contention.
Observation of the Court
The court while citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra and Deepak Gulati v State of Haryana, clarified that there is a distinction between a mere breach of promise and the failure to fulfill a false promise of marriage. Therefore, the court must carefully consider whether the accused made a false promise of marriage early on and whether the consent given by the prosecutrix was fully informed, understanding the nature and consequences of sexual intercourse. It is possible that in some cases, the prosecutrix may agree to engage in sexual intercourse out of love and passion for the accused, and not solely due to misrepresentation by the accused. There may also be situations where the accused, due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, was unable to marry the prosecutrix despite having the intention to do so. Such cases should be treated differently.
It is evident that the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix continued for a prolonged period of 8 years, and it cannot be assumed that she consented to sex solely because she was under the misconception that he would marry her. The prosecutrix is of mature age and was aware of the physical and mental aspects of the relationship. The fact that the relationship has turned sour now does not necessarily imply that the physical relationship established between them was non-consensual. There is no indication that the promise of marriage was made on every occasion when they engaged in physical intimacy, as they used to meet in isolation. The prosecutrix had consented to the physical intimacy without any grievance until she lodged the FIR on 17.02.2016. Therefore, there are insufficient grounds to charge the Applicant under Section 376 of the IPC.
When two adults enter into a relationship and invest in it, it would not be fair to solely blame one person just because the other person later complains about the relationship when it did not go well for some reason. Not all relationships need to result in marriage, and the fact that the relationship did not culminate into marriage should not be used to solely hold one person responsible.
CASE TITLE: Sameer Amrut Kondekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
CASE DETAILS: REVISION APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2019
CORAM: Justice Bharti Dangre
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate i/b Kripashankar Pandey
Advocates for Respondent: Ms.P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the State
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :