A sessions court acquitted a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage due to insufficient evidence. Additional Sessions Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal ruled the prosecution failed to prove charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 376 and 506 in the 2017 case.
A court has acquitted a man accused of raping a woman under the guise of marriage, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to establish charges for the alleged offenses. Additional Sessions Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal presided over the case, which was registered in 2017 under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the former Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Factual Background:
According to the prosecution, the complainant had been involved with the accused since December 25, 2012. The accused purportedly led her to engage in sexual relations by falsely promising marriage. In September 2015, the accused married the complainant after she threatened to file a lawsuit against him. Following the marriage, they began cohabiting and have maintained a valid marital relationship since then.
ALSO READ: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
Shortly thereafter, the accused returned to Gurgaon and allegedly informed the complainant that she had no legal recourse against him. The complainant also accused the accused and his friend of criminal intimidation, claiming they sent her derogatory WhatsApp messages.
Court’s Reasoning for Discharge
In an order the judge stated,
“This court is unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of Section 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) of the IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.”
The court determined that the complainant filed the case as a means of exerting pressure, rather than as a legitimate complaint under Section 376 IPC.
ALSO READ: False Promise of Marriage Cannot Be Treated as Consent: Calcutta High Court Upholds Rape Conviction
Given the valid marriage certificate, the court remarked that there could be no case of rape based on a promise of marriage, as the complainant and accused had been in a legally recognized marriage for two years before the FIR was filed.
The judge observed that their marriage precluded any grounds for criminality.
The additional public prosecutor contended that the charge under Section 376 IPC was still valid because the complainant had allegedly experienced forceful sexual relations.
However, the court pointed out that the complainant did not allege forceful sexual intercourse in her pre-trial statement to the metropolitan magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, confirming that she had performed a court marriage with the accused.
The court remarked,
“Taking a holistic view of this statement, it appears that the prosecutrix is only complaining about the fact that the accused left her after marriage,”
Furthermore, the allegations of criminal intimidation were absent from her Section 164 CrPC statement. The investigating officer originally sought the complainant’s cell phone to investigate the claims regarding disrespectful texts, but she refused to provide it, resulting in no evidence being collected.
The judge stated,
“It appears that the complainant chose to file the present FIR on account of frustration post-marriage and as pressure tactics to keep the accused with her,”
The court concluded that the complainant’s statements under Section 164 CrPC diminished the case’s credibility, leaving no grounds for “grave suspicion” against the accused.
It emphasized,
“There must be a grave suspicion against the accused with respect to the commission of the alleged offense. The court must not act as a mere post office and must not only be guided by the endorsement on the chargesheet,”
Ultimately, the court found no evidence to support charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and accordingly discharged the accused.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES