Court Overturns Conviction for Causing Miscarriage Due to Lack of Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of Ramesh Sahu for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), affirming that sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage constitutes rape if the promise was deceitful from the outset. However, the court overturned his conviction under Section 313 for causing miscarriage, citing insufficient evidence.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, focused on the critical aspect of consent vitiated by a misconception of fact, as outlined in Section 90 of the IPC. The court found that the appellant, Ramesh Sahu, had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix from the beginning and used the promise of marriage solely to fulfill his sexual desires. This deceit invalidated the prosecutrix's consent, rendering the act as rape.
The case dates back to an incident in December 1999, where the appellant allegedly raped the prosecutrix in a forest area by threatening her life. Following this, the appellant continued to exploit her under the guise of marriage, even living with her for several months. The prosecutrix reportedly became pregnant twice, but the pregnancies were terminated under coercion, leading to additional charges against the appellant.
During the trial, the appellant argued that the sexual relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix lodged the FIR only after the relationship soured. The defense also highlighted the delay of 3-4 years in filing the complaint. However, the court found that the delay was sufficiently explained by the prosecutrix's circumstances and the appellant's continuous deceit.
The High Court, however, found no concrete evidence to support the charge of causing miscarriage without consent. The prosecutrix's allegations of assault leading to miscarriage were not corroborated by medical records or testimony from treating doctors, leading the court to set aside the conviction under Section 313 IPC.
Justice Srivastava's judgment emphasizes the distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, underscoring that a false promise made with deceitful intent from the start vitiates consent. The court drew upon precedents from the Supreme Court to reinforce this legal position.
The appellant, who is currently on bail, has been directed to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the remainder of his sentence for the rape conviction. Failure to do so will result in coercive measures for his arrest.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the legal consequences of deceitful promises in relationships, reinforcing the protection of individuals from exploitation under the guise of marriage promises.
Bottom line:-
Sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC if the promise was deceitful from the very beginning, vitiating the consent of the prosecutrix under Section 90 IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Section 376 IPC, Section 313 IPC, Section 90 IPC
Ramesh Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933176
