The Madras High Court held that a woman’s civil claim for damages over a false promise of marriage can proceed despite the accused’s acquittal in a rape case, observing that technical acquittal does not extinguish civil liability entirely.
Madras High Court held that a criminal acquittal on technical grounds in a rape-related case does not bar a civil court from awarding damages to a woman. The damages may be granted where it is alleged that the man obtained the woman’s consent to sexual intercourse through a false promise of marriage.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete made these observations while dismissing a second appeal filed by the accused against a decree directing him to pay Rs.2,00,000 in compensation.
The Court noted that the determinations made during criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts, especially when the civil claim is based on tortious liability i.e., inducing consent through misrepresentation and later repudiating the promise.
In the second appeal, the accused argued that the civil suit was barred because he had already been acquitted in the criminal appeal. He also relied on a later maintenance-related proceeding where a revisional court reportedly observed that paternity could not be conclusively established based on standard gestation presumptions.
The High Court rejected these submissions. It observed that the acquittal in the criminal case was not a decision on the merits of the allegations, but was based on a technical ground.
The Court pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that the woman was below the age of 16 at the time of the incident because the relevant school records were not produced. It further noted that the criminal courts did not decide whether the alleged false promise of marriage actually obtained the plaintiff’s consent.
The Bench observed, adding that the findings in the criminal proceedings do not conclude the issues arising in the civil suit,
“The criminal courts did not adjudicate on whether a false promise of marriage had obtained the plaintiff’s consent”
The High Court emphasized that the civil courts, after an independent appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, had concurrently found that the accused had engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff with her consent; however, they found that such consent was induced by a false promise of marriage one the accused never intended to honour and which he later repudiated.
The High Court highlighted,
“The Judgment Courts below, upon an independent appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently found that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the plaintiff with her consent, but that such consent had been obtained by a false promise of marriage, which the appellant never intended to honour and subsequently repudiated. On that factual finding, the Courts below held the appellant liable to compensate the plaintiff for the injury she suffered”
The accused also argued that the Rs.2,00,000 compensation should not have been granted because the plaintiff allegedly did not prove her monetary loss.
The High Court rejected this. It held that the harm suffered by the woman affecting her dignity, reputation, mental peace, and emotional well-being was not the kind of injury that can be reduced to exact monetary calculations. It said that non-pecuniary harms cannot be measured with mathematical precision or treated like commercial losses.
The Court concluded that the Rs.2,00,000 award was fair and reasonable considering the mental agony and social stigma the plaintiff endured.
The accused further raised a limitation plea, claiming that the suit was filed far beyond the alleged incident in December 1995.
The Court noted that the plaintiff was born on June 7, 1981, meaning she was a minor at the time of the incident and attained majority on June 7, 1999. Applying Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which excludes the period of minority), and considering the time she spent pursuing the matter as an indigent person from August 2001, the Court found that the suit was filed within the three-year limitation period.
Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower civil courts, the High Court dismissed the second appeal.
The woman alleged that the accused had physical relations with her by inducing her consent on the assurance that he would marry her. She further alleged that the deception led to pregnancy and the birth of their son.
A criminal complaint was initially filed under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused. However, the appellate criminal court acquitted him in 1998.
Later, in 2003, the woman filed a civil suit seeking damages, citing not only physical pain but also loss of dignity, social stigma, and the adverse impact on her prospects of marriage. In 2008, the Subordinate Judge at Pollachi decreed the suit awarding Rs.2,00,000. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision in 2012.
Case Title: V v. R