Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court, Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Viju Abraham, has set aside the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty of rape and abduction. The appellant was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court stated that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had committed the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, a 36-year-old man from Malappuram District, was accused of abducting a 25-year-old woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe on the pretext of marriage and subsequently engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had promised to marry the woman, induced her to leave her home on the eve of her arranged marriage, and subjected her to sexual intercourse between June 10 and June 13, 2015.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR, Grants Anticipatory Bail in Land Allotment Case

The complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix on June 16, 2015, after she realized that the appellant, who was already married with children, would not marry her unless she converted to Islam. Based on her statement, Crime No. 455 of 2015 was registered at the Pookkottumpadam Police Station, and the appellant was charged with abduction and rape under IPC provisions and for offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

During the trial before the Special Court, the prosecution presented 18 witnesses, including the prosecutrix, medical examiners, and police officials. The defence, on the other hand, argued that the prosecutrix was well aware of the appellant’s marital status and had willingly entered into a relationship with him. The defence also stated inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements and stated that she had initially informed the Magistrate that she wished to continue living with the appellant.

The trial court, however, convicted the appellant based on the prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence, concluding that the woman's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact and that the sexual act, therefore, amounted to rape.

The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had deceived the prosecutrix. The Bench noted that:

"The evidence discloses that the prosecutrix was fully aware that the appellant was already married with children. She has never claimed that she expected or wanted the appellant to divorce his wife in order to marry her. Her evidence is that the appellant assured her that he would support his wife and child and the prosecutrix at the same time."

The court further noted that the prosecutrix had been in a prior sexual relationship with the appellant and had left her home voluntarily on the eve of her arranged marriage. She had also affirmed before the Magistrate that she wished to live with the appellant, and it was only after realizing that marriage would require conversion that she filed a complaint.

Regarding the question of whether consent was vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC, the court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Uday v. State of Karnataka, stating that mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false at its inception.

The court observed:

"An accused can be convicted for rape only if there are materials to suggest that the intention of the accused was mala fide and that he had clandestine motives. If for one reason or the other, the relationship between two persons could not be crystallised into a marriage, for reasons beyond the control of one person, or due to an act or omission from the other party, it may not come within the ambit of rape."

After examining the facts and legal precedents, the High Court concluded that neither the charge under Section 376 of IPC nor under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act was sustainable. The court also found no evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 366 of IPC, which pertains to abduction with the intent of compelling a woman into marriage or illicit intercourse.

Also Read: 'Paper Possession is Not Sufficient' – Bombay High Court Declares Land Acquisition Lapsed Due to Lack of Compensation and Possession

The judgment stated:

"In light of the discussion above, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish that, from the very outset, the accused never intended to marry the prosecutrix or that he induced her into a relationship based on false promises of marriage. Furthermore, the consent of the prosecutrix to engage in sexual relations cannot be deemed vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code."

The court accordingly set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his immediate release if he was not required in any other case.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Appellant: Advocate K. Rakesh

• For the Respondent (State of Kerala): Public Prosecutor Smt. Neema K.V.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Shahul Ameer

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:20016

Case Number: CRL.A NO. 378 OF 2019

Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice Viju Abraham

[Read/Download order]