Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maheshwar Tigga, was convicted under Sections 376, 323, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. He was sentenced to seven years, one year, and one month respectively. The prosecutrix (PW9) lodged an FIR on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years earlier, the appellant had outraged her modesty at knifepoint and thereafter continued to establish physical relations with her on the pretext of a promise to marry. She claimed that the appellant was about to marry another girl on 20.04.1999. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecutrix's age was uncertain; no documentary proof of age was produced, and a medical opinion suggested she was about 25 years old. The court noted that the relationship was consensual, as evidenced by letters exchanged between the parties and the fact that the prosecutrix had stayed at the appellant's house. The delay of four years in lodging the FIR was suspicious, especially since the FIR was filed just seven days before the appellant's scheduled marriage to another woman. The prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that no incident occurred on 09.04.1999, the date of the alleged last occurrence. The court also found that the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was perfunctory, with only three capsuled questions asked, which denied him a fair trial. The court held that the appellant's promise to marry was not false from the inception; the marriage could not materialize due to societal reasons as the appellant was a Scheduled Tribe and the prosecutrix was a Christian. The court concluded that the physical relations were consensual and no offence under Section 375 IPC was made out. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent under Misconception of Fact - Section 375 IPC - The court examined whether the prosecutrix's consent was based on a false promise of marriage from the inception. Held that the relationship was consensual and the appellant intended to marry but societal reasons prevented it; thus no offence of rape made out (Paras 13-14). B) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 CrPC - The court held that the trial court's perfunctory examination with only three capsuled questions denied the appellant a fair trial. Circumstances not put to the accused cannot be used against him (Paras 8-9). C) Evidence - Age of Prosecutrix - The court noted wide variation in evidence regarding age; no documentary proof was produced. Benefit of doubt given to appellant as possibility of prosecutrix being above 18 could not be ruled out (Para 7). D) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - The four-year delay in lodging FIR, explained by compromise efforts, was found suspicious as the FIR was lodged just before appellant's marriage to another girl. The delay, coupled with the prosecutrix's admission that no incident occurred on 09.04.1999, cast doubt on the prosecution's case (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 376, 323, 341 IPC is sustainable given the consensual nature of the relationship, delay in FIR, and perfunctory Section 313 CrPC examination.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Consent under misconception of fact
- Section 375 IPC
- Section 313 CrPC examination
- Delay in FIR
- Age of prosecutrix
- Promise of marriage
- Consensual relationship
