Non-consensual sexual intercourse constitutes rape irrespective of assurances of marriage: Jharkhand High Court
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement Ranchi, Oct 6: The Jharkhand High Court has refused to discharge a man who allegedly obtained…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
Ranchi, Oct 6: The Jharkhand High Court has refused to discharge a man who allegedly obtained consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage but forcibly committed initial sexual intercourse with her, reports LiveLaw.
observed, “As such from the very beginning he got the consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage. After assuring the victim to marry he came into the courtship of the victim and for the first time on 21.09.2018 he forcibly committed rape of victim. As such it cannot be accepted that the offence of 375 which is punishable of under section 376 of I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner.”
“So far as the case law upon which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied the benefit of the same cannot be given to the petitioner reason being in the case in hand since inception the consent was obtained after having assured the victim to marry with her and the rape which was committed for the first time on 21.09.2018 the physical relation was not consensual. Therefore, in view of the evidence collected by the I.O. the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the court-below does not bear any illegality or infirmity,” the Court added.
The petitioner had preferred revision against the trial court’s rejecting his application for discharge from the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
As per the FIR, the accused came in contact with the victim in 2018 and began to pursue her romantically, exerted pressure on her to enter into a marriage with him. According to the victim’s account, one night, the accused called her behind her house and, under the pretext of marriage, forcibly raped her. After this incident, the accused purportedly assured the victim that he would marry her. However, despite her repeated requests, he refused to follow through on that promise.
The victim further alleged that from 2018 to 2019, the accused continuously sexually exploited her. Additionally, the accused’s sister and mother visited her house, where they subjected her to verbal abuse and physical assault. Based on the victim’s written complaint, a case was registered against the accused at the relevant Police Station, charging him with the offence under Section 376 IPC.
The Court noted that the allegations were corroborated by statements from victim’s mother and another prosecution witness named Nandan Mandal.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner first encountered the victim in 2018, and it was evident from witness statements that he had been proposing marriage from the very beginning of their acquaintance.
The Court stressed that it is a well-established legal principle that when framing charges, the lower court should assess the evidence gathered by the investigating officer (I.O.).
“The court, at the time of framing charges, should not delve deeply into the evidence collected during the investigation. Instead, it must determine whether there is prima facie evidence to support the accusations against the accused, based on the evidence gathered by the I.O.,” the court stated.
The court further emphasized that it is also established in legal precedents that even if there is a strong suspicion of the commission of an offence, charges may be framed accordingly.
Consequently, the Criminal Revision petition was dismissed, and the lower court’s contested decision was upheld. The Court made it clear that any statements made in this ruling should not prejudice the prosecution’s case on its merits.
