Jharkhand HC Quashes Rape Case For Relationship With Widowed Sister In Law On False Promise Of Marriage
The Jharkhand High Court has allowed the petition of a rape accused holding that prima facie, the facts of the case did not indicate that the consent of the his widowed sister-in-law was obtained by playing fraud upon the victim under 'false promise to marry'.
The Court noted that the victim is a woman who was married and above the age of majority and well aware of the consequences of establishing a sexual relationship with another man. The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition of the Brother-in-law (Petitioner) of the Victim, challenging the dismissal of his discharge petition by the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Admittedly, the victim was major and a married lady, she was very much aware in regard to sexual relations being established with her brother-in-law. The consent cannot be said to be obtained under misconception in view of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code reason being that she had been continuously in establishing sexual relation with the petitioner for six years. Being a major and married lady, she was very much aware the consequences to establish sexual relation without getting married. From the allegations made in the FIR on their face do not indicate that the consent was obtained by playing fraud upon the victim."
Advocate Rajesh Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor Bhola Nath Ojha appeared for the State and Advocate C.S Pandey appeared for Opposite Party No. 2, the alleged victim.
In this case, the Petitioner alleged that the victim was a consenting adult and a widow who was fully aware of the consequences of engaging in physical relations with another person and that there was no deception or fraud used to obtain her consent. The Respondent contended that their case was well-supported by the victim's testimony, and there was enough evidence to establish the alleged offence and proceed with the trial.
After the victim’s husband passed away, her husband's younger brother (Petitioner herein) used to look after her. He assured the victim that he would marry her and was sexually assaulting her for the last six years. The victim was pregnant twice during this period, and the children were aborted. The Accused was sexually exploiting her, having deceived her on the pretext of marrying her. After that, he refused to marry the victim-informant, so the FIR was lodged.
The Court held that there was insufficient ground to make out the offence under Section 375 of the IPC. The Court relied on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2019) 9 SCC 608].
"Taking into account the totality of the facts and allegations made in the FIR, no offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. ... If the charge has been framed and trial has commenced on the sole ground, it cannot be accepted that this Criminal Revision has become infructuous", said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: ‘X’ v. State of Jharkhand
