Biraj Kalita vs State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3054 Gua

                                                              Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010003572012




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.A./34/2012

            BIRAJ KALITA
            S/O NIKUNJA KALITA,
            R/O VILL. SARU TEZPUR,
            P.S. PALASHBARI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.H L MAURYA

Advocate for the Respondent :

-BEFORE-

             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA



      Date of hearing and               :      24.11.2021
      judgment & order
                                                                        Page No.# 2/9




                             JUDGMENT & ORDER
                                  (ORAL)

This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order of the trial court dated 01.02.2012 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376(1)/417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default RI for another two months under Section 376(1) IPC and RI for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default RI for one month under Section 417 IPC.

2. Heard Mr. H.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State respondent.

3. The material facts of the case as stated in the FIR are as follows:

An FIR was lodged at Bijoynagar Police Outpost on 11.06.2009 by one Smti Himani Kalita, wife of Sri Tarun Kalita wherein the present appellant was named as the accused. The FIR states that the accused had developed affair with her daughter (who shall be referred here as "Ms A"). The accused started visiting their house and had physical relation with her daughter. They were having a relationship just like a husband and wife for the last two years. The accused had promised that he would marry her daughter but did not marry her till the date of filing the FIR. It is also stated in the FIR that her daughter was unwell both physically and mentally and on that day, i.e. 11.06.2009, at about 10 AM, her daughter went to the house of the accused and she was still there lying helplessly. Her daughter was carrying a pregnancy of four months and the accused was absconding.

4. On the strength of the FIR, a case was registered as Palashbari P.S. Case Page No.# 3/9

No.132/2009 under Sections 376/417 IPC. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 376/417 IPC. The case was later committed to Sessions where charges were framed against the accused under Section 376/417 IPC. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses.

5. Before going through the statements given by the witnesses and their cross-examination in the Court, it would be necessary to state at this juncture that after lodging of the FIR, the statements of the victim were recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the concerned Magistrate on 12.06.2009. The victim in her statements made under Section 164 CrPC stated as under:

"I got married to Khagen Kalita in 2004, but my husband died that very year. After the death of my husband, I returned to my parental home. About three years back, a love affair developed between me and my neighbour Sri Biraj Kalita. Biraj had sexual intercourse with me on the pretext of marrying me. As a result I am carrying a pregnancy of four months. For a long period of time, I had been under the impression that Biraj would marry me. But, Biraj has been pressurizing me for a week to have an abortion. But I have not agreed to do so. Biraj has been pressurizing me through other person(s) to have an abortion. Biraj told me over phone that he would marry me if I abort the pregnancy, but I have a doubt that he will not marry me. Making a phone call Biraj asked me if I dared to go to his house. I went to his house alone yesterday, but Biraj was not at home. Biraj's younger brother shut the door of the house. I kept sitting outside the house. I know that my mother lodged an ejahar with the police station. I went to the police station last night. Police got me medically examined. The family members of Biraj told me yesterday that they have been looking for other bride for Biraj."

6. The victim was also medically examined on 12.06.2009 where her age was determined to be about 20 years and there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. It was also detected that the victim was pregnant and as per ultrasonogrpahy report the foetus was about 19 weeks. She ultimately delivered a male child who died after one month. There is nothing on record to establish the paternity of the present appellant with the child.

Page No.# 4/9

7. Be that as it may, during the trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The deposition of PW 1, who is the victim herself, is extremely important. PW 1 was examined on 23.12.2010 and she said that she knew the accused for the last 4-5 years and in the year 2004, she was married to one Khagen Kalita who unfortunately died and she became a widow. Thereafter, she stayed with her parents. The accused used to visit her parental house and developed intimacy with her. He also proposed to marry her and she accepted the proposal. After assuring that the two would get married, he obtained her consent for sexual intercourse and as a result of which they had sexual intercourse and she became pregnant. She disclosed the fact of pregnancy to her mother as well as the accused. But the accused refused to marry her. After nine months of pregnancy, one male child was born to her who died after one month. Before delivery of the child, her mother lodged the FIR against the accused and after that she was medically examined by a Doctor and her statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. The accused had sexual intercourse with her for about two months and they used to have sexual intercourse within a gap of one or two days. She was cross-examined by the defence where she stated that her paternal house is situated at about ½ km from the house of the accused and accused had sexual intercourse with her taking advantage of the absence of the other members of the family. After two months of carrying the pregnancy and noticing the symptoms, she came to know that she was pregnant and in her cross-examination, she says that she had filed the case after five months of her pregnancy. She stated that initially she was not keen to file a case against the accused as she hoped that he would marry her as the accused had assured her that he would marry her in the year 2005. The accused started having sexual intercourse with her after 3-4 years of Page No.# 5/9

the promising of marriage. The accused had also disclosed this fact to her mother that he loved her daughter and he would marry her. The victim further says in her cross-examination that the accused generally visited her house at night and taking advantage of absence of other members slept with her. A suggestion was given to the victim that the FIR had been filed because of extraneous reason to which the witness replied that the accused deals in timber business and her mother had purchased 'planks' from the accused and made full payment of Rs.1800/- to him. To another suggestion she categorically denied that it is not the fact that the accused never developed love affairs with her or that he never promised to marry her. She said that the accused had sexual intimacy with her only after he had obtained her consent as he had promised to marry her. To another suggestion of the defence, she denied that the accused was not the biological father of the child she had given birth to.

8. PW 2 is the informant and the mother of the victim. She reiterated what had already been stated by her daughter, i.e. PW 1. On cross-examination, she denied that she had ever seen the accused and her daughter in a compromising situation but at the same time, she reiterated that the accused is the father of the child born to her daughter.

9. PW 3 is Dr. Richa Pandey who is the Medical Officer. PW 3 medically examined the victim on 12.06.2009. She examined the medical documents which were placed before her and the documents were signed by her. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence.

10. PW 4 is Aswini Mahanta who stated that he knows the accused as well as the victim. Though both are the residents of the same village, he has no knowledge of any relation between them.

Page No.# 6/9

11. PW 5 is the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate before whom the victim gave her statement under Section 164 CrPC. He reiterated the statements given by the victim before him.

12. PW 6 and PW 7 are the Investigating Officers. PW 6 is Sri Ashok Kumar Singh who started the investigation and PW 7 Medini Mohan Bariti is the subsequent Investigating Officer who filed the charge-sheet after completion of investigation.

13. Mr. H.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 376 as well as 417 IPC inasmuch as, it is a clear cut case which is evident from the statements of the witnesses none other but PW 1, i.e. the victim herself that what was there between the parties was consensual sex. Admittedly, both the victim and the accused were adults at the relevant time and they had intimate sexual relationship. Since it is a consensual sex, it would not amount to rape. The definition of rape at the relevant point of time, i.e. in the year 2009 was as under:

"375. Rape.--A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:--

First -- Against her will.

Secondly -- Without her consent.

Thirdly -- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly -- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly -- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly -- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the Page No.# 7/9

sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception --Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

14. In other words, a rape would not be a rape if sexual intercourse with the woman is "with her consent". The repeated assertion of the victim and PW 2, mother of the victim as well as the statements of the victim made under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition in Court clearly reveal that she had consented to sexual intercourse. The only exception she makes is that she gave consent as the accused had promised to marry her. On this aspect, learned trial court has relied upon Section 90 of the IPC and has come to a conclusion that under the circumstances the consent would not be a consent and therefore, it will still be a rape. Section 90 of the IPC reads as under:

"90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception._ A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or Consent of insane person._ if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or Consent of child._ unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age."

15. Section 90 of the IPC does not define consent. It merely states what cannot be construed as a consent. In other words, for our purposes what would be relevant is that a consent would not be a consent "if it is given under misconception of fact."

16. We must now refer here to a decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uday v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0162/2003: 2003 SCC (Crl.) 775. The facts of this case were that the prosecutrix was 19 years of age and the Page No.# 8/9

accused was 20-21 years of age. The findings of the trial court which were upheld by the appellate court (High Court), were that the prosecutrix had consented to have sexual intercourse with the appellant as the consent was obtained by fraud and deception, inasmuch as the appellant induced her to consent on the promise that he will marry her. It was under this conception that the prosecutrix who also claimed to be deeply in love with the accused continues to have sexual intercourse with him till it was discovered that she was pregnant. When the appellant refused to perform marriage, the complainant lodged a report before the police pursuant to which investigation was taken up and the appellant had to face trial, in which he was convicted, and this conviction was upheld by the High Court.

17. The above findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on ground that the facts of the case reveal that in the said case there was a valid consent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse. It was held that the prosecutrix was sufficiently intelligent to understand the significance of her act for which she had given consent. She knew very well the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that there was a difficulty in their marriage. Her decision was taken to be a free, voluntary and conscious decision, which was consent for a sexual intercourse, and it cannot be said to be done due to any "misconception of fact". Finally the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for application of Section 90 of IPC, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, it must be proved that the consent was given under a misconception of fact and secondly, it must be proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such misconception. The prosecution has not been able to establish this fact before Page No.# 9/9

the trial court.

18. Under almost similar facts where case of the prosecution was that consent has been given by the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage and therefore, sexual intercourse would amount to rape as the consent was because of misconception of fact, Uttarakhand High Court (in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2014, Priti Saxena vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) had held that this would not amount to misconception of facts and Section 90 of IPC will not be applicable.

19. Let us revert to the facts of the present case. The case of the prosecution in the present case was that the consent was given by the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse on her belief that the accused would marry her. Even presuming that it is so, there is nothing to show that the accused was not having bonafide intention to marry the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time when such an assurance was given. It is possible that the accused had changed his mind later. After examining the entire facts of the case, this Court cannot reach a conclusion that the relationship formed between the accused and the prosecutrix was "under misconception of fact". To the contrary, the evidence suggests that the relationship indeed was based on consent. It is definitely not a case of rape.

20. For the reasons stated above, this criminal appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 01.02.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.283(K) of 2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376(1)/417 IPC, is set aside. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.

CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant