False Promise Of Marriage Must Have Direct Nexus To Woman's Decision To Engage In Sexual Act To Attract Offence Of Rape: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing a petition filed by on Shivu @ Shiv Kumar and quashing the case pending under offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 313, 341, 354, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was alleged by the complainant that two years prior to the lodging of FIR, the petitioner - accused No.1 and CW1 were in love with each other and the accused No.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with CW1 and when she was pregnant, the petitioner - accused No.1 forced her to terminate the pregnancy.

Further it was said that after having sexual intercourse with CW1 on three to four occasions, the petitioner - accused No.1 started to avoid her and on 22.7.2017 she attempted to commit suicide. Since the petitioner - accused No.1 came to the hospital and promised to marry CW1, CW1 did not lodge FIR against the petitioner - accused No.1. Thereafter, his friends i.e. other accused threatened her and outraged her modesty. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

The bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 181, wherein it held that in the absence of allegation that promise to marry was false promise at the inception, the false promise itself must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

The court observed, "In the present case, there is no allegation that promise made to the 2nd respondent was false at the inception. Charge sheet material does not disclose that the petitioner by using force or by assaulting has outraged the modesty of the victim so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Atrocities Act."

It thus held, "Hence, in the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner- accused No.1, the filing of charge sheet against the petitioner - accused no.1 is without any substance."

Case Title: Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition No 3596/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

Date of Order: 22-06-2022

Appearance: Advocate Raghavendra Gowda K for Advocate Mohan Kumar D for petitioner; HCGP S Vishwamurthy for R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order