Priya Gour
Published on: 1st August, 2022 at 18:23 IST
The Tripura High Court recently, while hearing an appeal u/s 374 of CrPC said that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 of CrPC cannot be used against him.
An appeal was filed under Section 374 of CrPC against the conviction order of Session’s Judge.
The Case:
A complaint was filed by Bhabana Das, against Sanjib Paul, who had a love affair with her daughter, the having sexual relationship. This was solely done on the assurance of marriage give by the accused appellant to the complainant’s daughter. After the girl being impregnated, it was decided that a marriage shall be held between the two on a fixed date rather than approaching the court. However, neither of the families turned up on that day in the Court. After the birth of a child on 25th March, 2014, the accused had been alleged to torture the complainant’s daughter.
Following this, the issue was taken before a local club, namely, Aikyatan Club. On failure of the club to end the dispute, legal help was sought to. A complaint was then registered under Sections-376/417/109/506/34 of IPC. 11 witnesses the adduced by the prosecution, including the complainant herself.
The defence denied the allegations and pleaded to be innocent under Section-313 of CrPC. Also, he denied to adduce any witness in support of his defence.
However, the Court held the defence to be guilty under Sections-376(1)/417 of IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years, along with a fine of of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer further RI for 1 year. He was also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.10,000/ for conviction under Section 417.
However, it was argued by the petitioner that court orders are wrongful and be set aside. The reactions developed were out of love and not an assurance for marriage.
Decision of Court:
After due submissions the question was whether was the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship under any misconception of fact with regard to the promise of marriage by the appellant or not. The Single Bench Justice T. Amarnath Goud duly noted that:
“If we reach the conclusion that he intentionally made a fraudulent misrepresentation from the very inception and the prosecutrix gave her consent on a on a misconception of fact, the offence of rape under Section-375 IPC is clearly made out.”
“It is not possible to hold in the nature of evidence on record that the appellant obtained her consent at the inception by putting her under any fear. In the facts of the present case we are not persuaded to accept the solitary statement of the prosecutrix that at the time of the first alleged offence.”
The Court held that the prosecutrix gave her consent deliberately and consciously. Hence, charges under Section 417 and 376 cannot be held valid since it was a consented relationship.
Henceforth, the order of the Session’s Court was set aside.