Brief Facts
- The prosecution presented that the prosecutrix, residing in a rented house in Delhi in 2009, was persuaded by the accused, a neighbor, who promised to marry her. This led to an illicit relationship, resulting in her pregnancy in 2011. Despite continuous assurances of marriage, the accused deceived the prosecutrix, leading to her filing a complaint. The complaint, registered as FIR, led to charges against the accused under Section 376 of the IPC. The accused claimed the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix was aware of his marital status. He accused her of filing a false case when he refused her financial demands.
- The Sessions Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the imprisonment of 10 years. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence of the Appellant to 7 years.
Issues
- The distinction between a false promise to marry and a breach of promise in the context of prosecuting a person for rape under Section 376 IPC.
- The language in which the deposition of the witness is to be recorded.
Held
- The appeal was allowed and the Appellant was acquitted
- In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far.
Difference between a false promise and committing breach of promise
- The bone of contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her and subsequently, he did not marry, and therefore such consent was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause – Secondly of Section 375 IPC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would depend upon its proved facts before the court.
Statement of witness must be recorded in the language of the witness
- The evidence of the witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness as may be practicable and then get it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record. However, recording of evidence of the witness in the translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in the language of the court, or in his/her own vernacular language, is not permissible. As such, the text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the language of the witness. Even otherwise, when a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge. It is therefore directed that all courts while recording the evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions of Section 277 of CrPC.
Relevant Para No.
- 19, 20, 21, 24, 25