LexANURAG SONI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
ANURAG SONI
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2019)
APRIL 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.90, 375 and 376 – Prosecution case
that the prosecutrix was familiar with the accused-appellant since
2009 and there was love affair between them – Appellant established
physical relation with her on the pretext of marrying her, however
after keeping the prosecutrix and her family members in dark for
about two months, the appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix
and performed marriage with another girl – Sessions Court
convicted the appellant for the offence u/s. 376, IPC – High Court
confirmed the judgment – On appeal, held: Prosecution has been
successful in proving the case that the promise given by the appellant
to marry the prosecutrix was false and from the very beginning the
appellant had no intention to marry the prosecutrix as his marriage
with another girl was already fixed long back – Despite the same,
he continued to give false promise and alluded the prosecutrix to
give her consent for the physical relationship – Initially the
prosecutrix resisted, however, gave the consent relying upon the
false promise of the appellant that he will marry her – Her consent
can be said to be a consent on misconception of fact as per s.90,
IPC – Both the Courts below rightly held that the consent given by
the prosecutrix was on misconception of fact and, therefore, the
same cannot be said to be a consent so as to excuse the appellant
for the charge of rape as defined u/s.375, IPC – Appellant’s
conviction u/s.376, IPC, maintained – However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, sentence of 10 years’ rigorous
imprisonment awarded by the courts below is reduced to seven years’
rigorous imprisonment – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114-A.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If it is established and proved that from the
inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 972
972
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
973
to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix
gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by
the accused that he would marry her, such a consent can be said
to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section
90 of the IPC and, in such a case, such a consent would not excuse
the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed
the rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC and can be
convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
[Para 12][990-C-D]
1.2 The prosecution has been successful in proving the
case that from the very beginning the accused never intended to
marry the prosecutrix; he gave false promises/promise to the
prosecutrix to marry her and on such false promise he had physical
relation with the prosecutrix; the prosecutrix initially resisted,
however, gave the consent relying upon the false promise of the
accused that he will marry her and, therefore, her consent can be
said to be a consent on misconception of fact as per Section 90 of
the IPC and such a consent shall not excuse the accused from
the charge of rape and offence under Section 375 of the IPC.
The prosecutrix, in the present case, was an educated girl studying
in B. Pharmacy. Therefore, it is not believable that despite having
knowledge that that appellant’s marriage is fixed with another
lady, the prosecutrix and her family members would continue to
pressurise the accused to marry and the prosecutrix will give
the consent for physical relation. In the deposition, the prosecutrix
specifically stated that initially she did not give her consent for
physical relationship, however, on the appellant’s promise that
he would marry her and relying upon such promise, she consented
for physical relationship with the appellant-accused. Even
considering Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, which has
been inserted subsequently, there is a presumption and the court
shall presume that she gave the consent for the physical
relationship with the accused relying upon the promise by the
accused that he will marry her. From the very inception, the
promise given by the accused to marry the prosecutrix was a
false promise and from the very beginning there was no intention
of the accused to marry the prosecutrix as his marriage with ‘PS’
was already fixed long back and, despite the same, he continued
ANURAG SONI v. STATE OF CHHATExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.