Consent Not Coerced: Jharkhand High Court Overturns Rape Conviction After 12 Years

After a 12-year period, the Jharkhand High Court overturned a trial court's conviction order in a rape case, allowing an appeal filed by the accused.

Court observed that in the instant case there had been an ongoing physical relationship between the appellant and the victim for approximately six months, and it was only after the victim became pregnant that the matter was brought to light.

Moreover, upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, leading to pregnancy before the case was officially reported.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “In the present case, as discussed above, there is an inordinate delay of six months in registration of the case. Physical relationship continued for about six months and when the victim became pregnant only then the matter was reported. It has been deposed by the prosecutrix that the accused had promised to marry her. It has also come in evidence that the Appellant had gone to the Court for registration of marriage, but was prevented by other persons there.”

“On these evidence, the allegation of rape having been committed on a false promise of marriage is not proved. What can be gathered from the combined reading of the testimony of witnesses is that on panchayat, the Appellant was asked to marry the victim girl, but this did not materialise on account of the objection from others. Proposal to marry was a subsequent development and not one which was given to obtain the consent of the victim girl. The evidence unerringly point to a consensual relationship, resulting in pregnancy after which the case was registered. The consent of the victim was not obtained under force or fraud,” Justice Choudhary added.

The above ruling came against a judgment of conviction and sentencing under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which was challenged in the criminal appeal, stemming from the case initiated following the victim's statement recorded as "fardbeyan" on October 22, 2007. The case was registered under Sections 493, 376, and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the victim's statement, six months prior, the appellant, Mohidul Sk, had allegedly raped her by muffling her mouth near her residence in a bush. Subsequently, she disclosed the incident to her parents, leading to a confrontation with the appellant by her family and villagers. Reportedly, the appellant confessed to the offense and agreed to marry her.

Following the promise of marriage, the victim began visiting the appellant's residence frequently, developing an intimate relationship with him. During this period, she became pregnant. Efforts were made to formalize the marriage through a Panchayat, but due to opposition from the appellant's uncle and father, the marriage could not proceed. Despite attempts to register the marriage in Pakur Court, disputes prevented its realization. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the appellant - Mohidul Sk, and two others - Miraj Sk, and Akhtar Sk.

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 376, 493, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, while Miraj Sk and Akhtar Sk were not pursued for trial.

The trial Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 493 and 323 of the IPC but convicted him under Section 376, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1000/-.

The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's case lacked support from independent witnesses. He highlighted discrepancies in the age of the victim: while the court assessed her age to be 17 years, she stated it was 15 years, while the examining doctor estimated it to be 17-18 years.

Pointing out that before the 2013 amendment in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, the age of consent was 16 years, the counsel contended that the victim was a legal adult at the time of the incident.

The counsel further argued that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, as evidenced by its duration of more than six months, as mentioned in the FIR and the victim's statement, as well as corroborated by her family members. He emphasized the absence of any protest or complaint during this six-month period, with the victim only disclosing the incident to her family members upon reaching an advanced stage of pregnancy.

Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the essence of the offense under Section 376 of the IPC is the use of force or coercion to obtain carnal pleasure, and in the absence of evidence supporting such coercion, the offense could not be established.

The Court noted “Sexual intercourse with a woman, “against her will” or “without her consent” is the essence of offence of rape. Mere act of submission does not amount to consent. It depends upon the circumstances of each case, whether the earliest consent by the victim was mere passive submission or willing consent. Consent obtained by misrepresentation of fact, is also no consent within the meaning of Section 90 of the IPC.”

Placing reliance on the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, the Court added, “it has been held that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.”

Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to substantiate the rape charge against the Appellant.

Thus, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court is set aside, and allowed the appeal.

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 705 of 2012

Case Title: Mohidul Sk vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement