![BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON FALSE PROMISE TO MARRY](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Screenshot-2023-04-06-224908.png)
Bombay High Court discharged a man who was accused of raping his girlfriend, the court observed that, when two people consensually come in a relationship, one of them cannot be held liable solely because the other person alleged rape after the relationship did not end up in marriage.
In 2019, the trial court refused to discharge the man under section 376 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of complaint filed against him by his girlfriend of the age 27, on 17th of February 2016.
As stated by the prosecutrix, the couple met on Orkut, a dating app in 2008, from here both started sharing a bond of friendship and would meet whenever the prosecutrix would visit Mumbai. They then fell in love in the year 2013. It is reported that this is when the applicant promised the complainant of marriage and after this incident whenever the prosecutrix would visit the applicant they would establish physical relation, sometimes with consent and sometimes forcibly. Their relationship wasn’t a secret one, even the parents of the applicant as well the prosecutrix were about about it. The complainant alleged that she agreed to consummate only on the assurance of marriage that was guaranteed to her by her boyfriend but he later withdrew, then the prosecutrix alleged that the applicant sent her obscene messages and would even suspect her character, he was also said to have made immoral remarks regarding her family. It further was stated that applicant abused and assaulted the complainant both mentally and physically, after which an FIR was filed against him by the complainant in 2016. This complaint resulted in invoking the offences under section 376 and 323 of IPC and also Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. An investigation was held and a chargesheet was filled against the applicant.
The Apex court was hearing a revision application filled by the accused, reprehending the order of trial court given on 01.03. 2019. The Dindoshi session court (Borivali District) found the case to be non-consensual in nature since the intercourse was stated to be forceful occasionally by the prosecutrix. Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for the man and Assistant Public Prosecutor PN Dabholkar appeared for the state. The Bombay High Court remarked that the couple was in a relationship for eight long years and it is not justified to say that the woman was kept under the misconception of marriage all along.
It was noted that, according to the prosecutrix’s version of the story, promise made by the applicant was not the only reason to continue with the relationship, rather she was in love with the applicant and was mature enough to understand the significance of indulging in sexual activities. The relationship continuing for a considerable amount of time, does not conclude that the intercourse was only established after promising the solemnization of marriage each and every-time, both the applicant and prosecutrix would meet often and would indulge into sexual acts, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the promise of marriage was made every time.
It was stated by the high court that in such a prolonged relationship with the prosecutrix being of sufficiently mature age, it was evident that the prosecutrix was conscious of the consequences and it cannot be inferred that she was under misconception all this while, the couple used to meet privately and there is enough evidence to prove that every-time physical relationship was established without the prosecutrix’s consent, due to this the court felt that there aren’t sufficient grounds against the applicant and hence charging him under section 376 of IPC is not valid. For section 323 of IPC the judge noted that it was extremely vague of a statement, based on mere allegations and no further details being provided. Further the trial court’s rejection on discharging the applicant on the basis of mere observation that sometimes the intercourse was non-consensual cannot be justified. As a result, the applicant was then discharged and the order dated 01.03.2019 was stated unsustainable.
NAME: PRANJAL JHA, SEMESTER: 2ND, COLLEGE: AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
![](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/join_whatsapp.png)
0 Comments