Listen to this articleMaheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2020 decided on September 28, 2020.
BENCH- Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
FACTS
Prosecutrix, belonging to Christian community, has filed an FIR on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years ago (from then) accused, who is a Schedule Tribe, had outraged her modesty at the point of knife. He had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. Subsequently, appellant is alleged to have solemnize his marriage with some other girl and aggrieved by the news prosecutrix felt betrayed and cheated..
The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence convicted the appellant as the prosecutrix was 14 years of age when the appellant had first committed rape upon her at the point of a knife. The Trial Court convicted the appellant which later was upheld by High Court.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship was under the false promise of marriage by the appellant or was her consent based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant never intended to keep since the very inception of the relationship?
[Editors Note:- The question whether physical relationship was under the false promise of marriage by the appellant(Case I) or consent was based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage is important(Case II) because in scenario of Case I, there won’t be any offence of rape while in scenario of Case II there will be offence of rape.
Refer Supreme Court Judgement: Uday v. State of Karnataka(2003 Cri LJ 1539)]
HELD
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and said that since accused and prosecutrix belonged to different community they were aware of the societal obstacles that they will have to undergo to materialize their relationship into marriage and so accused could not be held liable for intentionally making fraudulent misrepresentation regarding marriage and at best it can be said that the current case is of false promise of marriage. Supreme Court observed that misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and same cannot be spread over period of four years. The Supreme Court further said that facts of the case and evidence produced on record makes it apparent and clear that they both loved each other and physical relation was consensual in nature.