The Madras High Court acquitted a man who was convicted in rape case, saying that the physical relationship was not only due to the alleged promise of marriage.

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against his conviction by the Sessions Judge under Sections 417, 376 read with 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan observed, “The evidence of PW1 therefore would make it clear that the physical relationship was not only due to the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry the victim. The victim was aged 24 years at the time of occurrence and she was aware of the consequences of her act and it cannot be said that her consent to have sexual intercourse is only on the false promise of marriage. The victim is not naive or gullible and she was capable of understanding the consequences of her acts.”

The Bench said that the Complaint that the accused committed sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage was made for the first time 25 months after the alleged occurrence.

Senior Advocate R. John Sathyan appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Government Advocate C.E. Pratap appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the victim aged 24 years at the time of incident, had a lover affair with the Appellant-accused who was aged 26 years, for a period of 6 years before the occurrence. The victim told the accused that since they belonged to different religions, it is not possible to get married. It was alleged that the accused threatened her stating that if she did not marry him, he would commit suicide and that on the promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with her in her house.

On the Complaint given by the victim, a case registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b), and 352 of IPC. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 417, 376 read with 90 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. However, the Trial Court found him not guilty of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction, the accused was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In this case, delay would certainly assume significance. The evidence of the other witnesses at best reveals that the appellant and the victim had a close relationship and therefore, those witnesses would be of no avail to the prosecution to establish the alleged false promise or that the consent was on the alleged false promise. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 at best would reveal a breach of promise and would not establish the alleged deception said to have been made.”

The Court was of the view that the evidence only reveals a consensual relationship for a prolonged period of time that turned sour and hence, the offence under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC, are not made out on the facts of the case.

“It is also to be noted that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version with regard to the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Ameen Batcha v. The State

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate R. John Sathyan and Advocate Swamisubramanian.

Respondent: Government Advocate C.E. Pratap

Click here to read/download the Judgment