Madras HC Acquits Man in Rape Case: Physical Relationship Not Solely Based on Alleged Promise of Marriage
Pranav B Prem
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a man convicted in a rape case, holding that the physical relationship between the accused and the complainant was not solely predicated on an alleged false promise of marriage. Justice Sunder Mohan, hearing a criminal appeal, overturned the trial court’s verdict that sentenced the accused to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 417 and 376 read with Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that the accused had coerced her into a physical relationship by threatening to commit suicide if she did not marry him. The complainant, aged 24 at the time, and the accused, aged 26, had been in a romantic relationship for six years. The complainant stated that they belonged to different religions, making marriage challenging. However, she claimed the accused promised to marry her and subsequently engaged in sexual relations with her at her residence on two occasions in June 2018. The complaint was filed more than two years later, in July 2020. The trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 417 and 376 read with Section 90 IPC while acquitting him of charges under Sections 294(b) and 352 IPC. Aggrieved by this, the accused approached the High Court.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court carefully examined the evidence and noted several critical factors that led to the acquittal:
Delayed Complaint: Justice Mohan emphasized the significance of the 25-month delay in filing the complaint. The Court noted that such a delay raised doubts about the veracity of the complainant’s claims.
Consensual Relationship: The Court held that the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused appeared consensual. Justice Mohan observed that the complainant, a mature adult, was fully aware of the consequences of her actions. The court observed, “The evidence of PW1 therefore would make it clear that the physical relationship was not only due to the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry the victim. The victim was aged 24 years at the time of occurrence and she was aware of the consequences of her act and it cannot be said that her consent to have sexual intercourse is only on the false promise of marriage. The victim is not naive or gullible and she was capable of understanding the consequences of her acts.”
Inadequate Evidence of Deception: The Court noted that the complainant’s evidence did not establish that the accused intentionally deceived her with a false promise of marriage. The Court observed, “The evidence of other witnesses at best reveals a breach of promise but does not establish deception.”
Prolonged Romantic Relationship: The judgment highlighted that the accused and the complainant shared a close relationship for six years, marked by financial transactions and mutual support. For instance, the accused helped the complainant recover her pledged gold chain.
Legal Precedents Cited
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra, which held that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the outset and made with the intent to deceive. Justice Mohan pointed out that the prolonged consensual relationship between the parties undermined the claim that the accused had made a false promise of marriage.
Verdict
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused obtained consent for sexual intercourse through deception. It stated, “The evidence only reveals a consensual relationship for a prolonged period of time that turned sour. Hence, the offence under Sections 376 and 417 IPC is not made out on the facts of the case.” Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused. The fine amount, if paid, was ordered to be refunded, and any bail bonds executed by the accused were discharged.
Cause Title: Ameen Batcha v. The State
Case No: Crl.A.No.73 of 2023
Date: January-20-2025
Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan
[Read/Download order]
