Acquittal by Trial Court Overturned; Accused Sentenced to Life Imprisonment Under Sections 376, 417, and 506 IPC; Court Directs Rs. 7 Lakh Fine with Major Portion Secured for Child's Future
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 17, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices H.P. Sandesh and B. Pramod) reversed the acquittal of an accused, Devaraju, who had been charged with sexual assault and related offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The Court found the Trial Court's acquittal perverse, as it failed to properly appreciate critical evidence, including a complaint, victim testimony, and conclusive DNA reports.
The case originated from a complaint by the victim, Manjula, who alleged that the accused, with whom she shared a love affair since school days, repeatedly promised to marry her. On the strength of this promise, she consented to sexual intercourse, which eventually led to her pregnancy and the birth of a daughter. However, the accused later refused to marry her, pressured her to abort the pregnancy, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter.
While the Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the sexual relationship was consensual and no force or injury was evident, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found serious lapses in the lower court's reasoning. The High Court emphasized that consent obtained by deception or under a misconception of fact-here, the false promise of marriage-cannot be construed as free consent under Section 90 of the IPC, and the accused's actions constituted offenses under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation).
Key evidence included the victim's detailed testimony corroborating the promise of marriage and subsequent threats, as well as a DNA report conclusively establishing the accused as the biological father of the child. The Trial Court's failure to consider the DNA evidence and the complaint's contents were deemed a serious error.
The High Court converted the acquittal into a conviction and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 376 IPC, one year imprisonment under Section 417 IPC, and two years imprisonment under Section 506 IPC, all sentences to run concurrently. The accused was also fined Rs. 7,00,000, with Rs. 5,00,000 to be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of the child until she attains majority, and Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid to the victim for her livelihood and her daughter's education.
Additionally, the Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay maximum compensation to the victim and her child from its corpus within four months, acknowledging the victim's poor background and the Trial Court's failure to address compensation even during acquittal.
The Court also noted ongoing maintenance proceedings where a nominal maintenance amount ordered by the Trial Court had not been paid by the accused, further highlighting his neglect.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting women and children from exploitation under false pretenses and ensuring that victims receive not only justice but also appropriate compensation for their hardships.
Bottom Line:
Promise to marry - Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage resulting in pregnancy and birth of child - Trial Court acquitting accused by treating relationship as consensual despite uncontroverted evidence of promise, complaint, testimony of victim and DNA report proving paternity - High Court held acquittal perverse and converted acquittal into conviction under Sections 417, 376 and 506 IPC - Compensation to victim and child also directed under Section 357A Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 376, 417, 506, 90 of Indian Penal Code; Section 357A of Criminal Procedure Code
Manjula v. Devaraju, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001762
