The High Court of Delhi has expounded that decision about the nature of a “promise to marry” must await a thorough assessment and evaluation of evidence at the trial and shouldn’t be done at the bail-plea stage.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner-accused was charged with rape under Section-376 of the Indian Penal Code on two occasions in Jan 2021 and May 2021 respectively. Although both of them shared a romantic relationship, the prosecutrix alleged the petitioner of having sexual intercourse with her without her consent. After the second incident in May, the family of the petitioner agreed to marry off both adults after their completion of education, however, the same promise was later breached.
Contention by the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the charges against his client arose due to the displeasure of the prosecutrix about the withdrawal of the marriage proposal. It was further contended that on the time of commission of the first offence in January 2021, the petitioner was at his house and the second allegation of sexual intercourse in May 2021 is bereft of any specifics with regards to time or place of the commission of offence. It was argued that both the individuals were major who shared a consensual relationship known to both their families and a mere breach of ‘promise to marry’ does not constitute an offence under section 375 and 376 of IPC.
Contention by the Respondent:
It was submitted by the state counsel that the prosecutrix had been consistent in her allegations against the petitioner about the forcible and non-consensual sexual intercourse and the same has also been confessed by the petitioner before his friend (extra-judicial confession). It was contended that since charge was framed under section 376 IPC, the presumption under section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 will apply, and the Court must therefore presume that the prosecutrix did not consent to the sexual act.
High Court's Observation:
The High Court of Delhi while admitting to the prevalence of a consensual romantic relationship, relied on the judgement given in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar to reiterate that for a ‘promise to marry’ to be false, the presence of bad intention and immediate relevance of such promise in giving consent by the female, should be proved. However, when the question pertains to granting bail to the accused in such case, the Court opined that it is neither feasible nor appropriate for it to draw any conclusion about the nature of such promise. Furthermore, it couldn’t be deciphered with conviction that the promise to marry was ex-facie false or bore an immediate relevance on the consent for sexual intercourse.
Decision:
Following the ‘Bail no Jail’ rule, the High Court of Delhi granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to a few conditions. The petition was thus, disposed-of.
Case Title: Rishabh Rawat vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Bail Application 780/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Vipin Rana with Mr. Shiv Kumar, Mr. Shyamendra Kumar, Ms. Ritu, Ms. K.S. Verma, Advocates.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Mr. Deepak Singh Thakur
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://stocksnap.io/photo/people-couple-88H5BM7G82
