‘Victim Attempted To Entangle Accused In Criminal Case’: Orissa High Court Quashes Rape Case Alleging False Promise Of Marriage

While giving relief to the accused, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra was of the view that the victim tried to foist a false case upon the accused to pressurize him and observed,

“…if the facts of the case and the materials on record are viewed objectively it would reveal an apparent attempt by the victim to entangle the accused in a criminal case apparently to coerce him into a marital relationship.”

The victim lodged a written complaint before the police on 06.04.2022 alleging therein that she was in love with the accused and that on 04.04.2022, he lured her on the promise of marriage and took her with him to his sister’s house. They stayed for the night there.

On 05.04.2022., the elder brother and cousin of the accused assured that they would get them married in Court. The victim further alleged that the accused asked her to remain in his house but his family members abused her and threatened to kill her.

On such complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 363/417/506/34 of the IPC against the petitioner/accused. The statement of the victim under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded on 06.04.2022, who stated more or less the same thing as her version in the FIR.

On 08.04.2022, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded before the Magistrate. In the said statement she reiterated the FIR version. But another statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 30.04.2022.

In the said statement she came out with a different version of the occurrence and alleged that in course of their stay in the house of the sister of the accused, he had forcibly kept sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage.

After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 366/376(1)/417/ 506/201/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the Court below took cognizance of the aforementioned offences. Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court, at the outset, observed that there is a certain sanctity attached to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.

“It is the settled position of law that the object of recording the statement of a witness under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is twofold- to deter the witness from changing his stand by denying the contents of his previously recorded statement and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by the witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C,” it added.

The Court noted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC was entirely in consonance with her version in the FIR as also her statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. However, to the utter surprise of the Court, an attempt was made to introduce a different version by seeking to record another statement under Section 164, CrPC.

The Court affirmed the decision taken by the Magistrate in rejecting such request to re-record the statement under Section 164, CrPC. It held that such statement would have run contrary to the very object of recording the statement.

“Under such circumstances, the second statement of the victim recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 30.04.2022, with the obvious intent to offset all that she had said earlier would be a travesty of justice and hence cannot be taken into consideration at all,” the Court further observed.

The Court opined that if she was actually sexually assaulted, nothing could have prevented her from disclosing it before the police at the first instance.

Particularly, as she could approach the police and submit a complaint alleging withdrawal of the promise of marriage by the accused, doubt was raised by the Court as to what prompted her to add the allegation of sexual assault in her subsequent statement recorded a little more than 15 days later.

“Perusal of the case diary produced by the learned State Counsel does not reveal any plausible reason for the I.O. for examining the victim again on 30.04.2022 when her statements had already been recorded twice. In any case, there is no reason as to why the victim was reluctant to disclose about the sexual assault before the Court,” the Court added.

The Court reiterated that the version of the victim undoubtedly commands great weight but the same cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration.

After going through the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that the version of the victim does not inspire confidence at all so as to be accepted.

The Court held that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to show that the victim had been subjected to sexual intercourse at all much less on the promise of marriage. The subsequent statement of the victim in this regard was held to be unacceptable.

Accordingly, the pending criminal case against the petitioner was quashed.

Case Title: Saroj Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLMC No. 1244 of 2023

Date of Judgment: July 28, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; M/s. Anirudha Das, A. Das, S.C. Mishra, K. Behera & M.S. Hasan, Advocates for the informant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 84