The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak while acquitting a man who was allegedly held for the rape charges opined that punishing a man for Rape just because he promised to marry someone but could not marry due to certain events such as opposition by Family would be incorrect.
Background of the Case
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2015 and 18.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track First Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year.
Case of the Prosecution and Defence
The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant cohabited with the victim girl, who is a minor, on the false promise of marriage and in the time being, the girl became pregnant. When she asked the appellant to marry her, he evaded the issue. Appellant had last cohabited with the victim on 16.02.2010 at 8.30 p.m. in a bamboo grove.
The matter came to the knowledge of the family members. A salish was held. At the salish, the appellant refused to marry the victim girl due to the strong objection of his family members. Under such circumstances, the victim girl lodged a first information report with the police on 01.03.2010 under Sections 376/493 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 376/493 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case.
The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 376 IPC.
Submissions of the Appellant before High Court
Appellant submits that the victim was a consenting party. The appellant was a young person and there was free mixing between the parties. Marriage between the couple could not fructify due to the resistance of the parents of the appellant.
It was also submitted that the victim was a minor at the time of occurrence and the appellant had forcibly ravished the girl on the first occasion. He had repeatedly cohabited with the victim on the false promise of marriage. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed
Observation of the Court
The Court noticed that the evidence of record clearly established that the appellant had cohabited with her on the promise of marriage. The court was reluctant to accept the view that initial cost habitation was forceful and was without consent and held that,
"I find it is difficult to accept that the initial cohabitation was forceful as such. The allegation is significantly absent in the first information report lodged by P.W. 1. It is argued that the appellant had agreed to marry her but the marriage could not fructify due to resistance from his parents. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant did not intend to marry her at the time when they cohabited. I find much substance in such submission. Mere failure to keep a promise without anything more cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that the promise had been dishonestly made from the inception. Evidence has come on record that the appellant and the victim girl wanted to marry each other and cohabited. As a result, she became pregnant but due to the resistance of the parents of the appellant marriage was not held. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the intention to marry the victim at the time when they cohabited but such marriage was not possible due to obstruction from elders in the family. Moreover, it appears from “Exhibit – 2” that the date of birth of the victim is 18.03.1993 and she was above 16 years at the time of occurrence."
Furthermore, it was brought into notice that the victim had crossed the age of consent which was evident from the materials on record, it appeared that the cohabitation was consensual. The Court highlighted in the order that the Appellant was a young person and the marriage proposal did not come to fruition due to opposition from elders. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant did not intend to marry from the inception of the relationship. Furthermore, it would be incorrect to punish the appellant as the promise to marry did not fructify due to subsequent events, namely, opposition from family elders which is not attributable to him.
The court relied on the case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. the State of Bihar to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against him.
The court directed the authorities that Appellant Saddam Hussain shall be forthwith released from custody, if not wanted in any other case, upon executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court for a period of six months in terms of section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed. All connected applications, if any pending, were disposed of.
The court even recommended that the copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.
Case Details
Case Title: Saddam Hussain v. State of West Bengal
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
