A man having sexual intercourse with a woman after promising to marry her and later going back on the promise will not amount to rape if the promise was genuine but he backed out due to parental disagreement, the Bombay High Court recently held [Gaurav Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra & Anr].
Justice MW Chandwani of the Nagpur bench, therefore, acquitted a rape accused after noting that he was ready to marry his partner but later retracted from this promise because his parents were not agreeable to the marriage.
“Merely because he resiled from his promise to marry, since his parents were not agreeable to their marriage, it cannot be said that the applicant committed the offence punishable under Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),” the Court held in its January 30 order.
The Court opined that even if the allegations against the accused were taken at face value, it is not as if he had made a “false” promise of marriage.
“At the most, it is a case of non-fulfillment or a breach of promise on account of circumstances, which the applicant (accused) could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control as he was unable to marry the victim, despite having every intention to do so,” the Court said.
Justice MW Chandwani
The Court also observed that there were WhatsApp chats indicating that the victim was earlier reluctant to marry, while the accused was ready to marry her.
“It is the victim, who denied and informed the applicant that she will marry another boy. It is only when the applicant got engaged with another girl, the victim lodged the complaint,” the Court remarked.
The complainant woman and the accused were said to have entered into physical relations when they were in a relationship in 2019. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the man was engaged to another woman and would be marrying her.
The complainant then lodged a complaint with the police station in Nagpur. When the accused was summoned, he informed the police that he was ready to marry the complainant, but that his parents did not agree to the marriage.
The complainant woman also went to meet the man’s father who maintained that he was not in favour of having his son married to the complainant.
Following this, the Nagpur police registered an FIR against the accused under Section 376(2)(n) (dealing with the offence of rape) of the IPC.
The accused eventually approached a sessions court for his discharge from the case after the chargesheet came to be filed.
However, the sessions court refused to discharge the accused, prompting him to approach the High Court for relief.
The High Court noted from the chargesheet that the couple had engaged in physical relations on several occasions and that a promise of marriage was not the only reason for such relations.
“She (complainant) was fully conscious about the effect of sexual indulgence and pursued a relationship continuously for a considerable length of time. This does not give rise to a conclusion that on every occasion, only on the promise of marriage sexual relations were established. There is a distinction between breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise,” the judge added.
The Court concluded that no offence of rape was made out against the accused. Therefore, the High Court discharged the accused from the criminal case.
Advocate JM Gandhi appeared for the accused.
Additional public prosecutor SA Ashirgade appeared for the State.
Advocate AP Murrey appeared for the complainant.
Source Link
