State vs Rajashekhar

N. Ananda, J.—The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of Respondent-accused for an offence punishable u/s 376, 506 and 417 I.P.C.

We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State and Sri. Rahul Rai, learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.

The evidence of victim would reveal that somewhere in the month of January 2003 when the victim was alone in the house, the accused entered the house, bolted the door and committed rape on her by using criminal force and also threatened her with dire consequences to her life. The accused did not stop at that. He had repeated sexual intercourse with the victim, as a result, the victim conceived. When she was carrying 4 months pregnancy, she demanded the accused to marry her, as he was responsible for causing pregnancy. The accused told her to get the pregnancy terminated. The victim was taken to a doctor by name Dr. Narasimha Murthy who on examination of victim told as she was carrying pregnancy of 18 weeks old, her pregnancy cannot be terminated. Thereafter, the victim informed the matter to her parents who conveyed a panchayat. Though accused was agreeable to marry the victim, his parents did not agree. Thereafter, accused left the village. The victim realising that she was cheated by the accused, set the law into motion. The above narration is found in the evidence of the victim and her parents. There is medical evidence in proof of these facts.

The accused has denied these facts. The accused has unsuccessfully tried to point at one Prakash of same village as responsible for the plight of victim. We do not find any substance in such defence. The victim was aged about 17 years at the time of incident. It is evident from the extract of school admission register and also from the medical evidence. Therefore, the crucial question for determination is:

Whether the accused committed rape on the victim by holding false promise to marry the victim without therebeing any intention to marry her ?

In the first information lodged by the victim, we find that on a certain day during January'' 2003, the accused entered the house of victim when she was alone in the house and committed rape on her and also held out threats to her life. In the first information, the victim has stated that, the accused whenever the victim was alone in the house, the accused used to commit rape on her by holding out threats to her. As a result, the victim conceived. When she requested the accused to marry her as he was responsible for her plight, the accused advised her to undergo abortion. The victim informed the matter to her parents and a panchayat was conveyed. The accused and his parents refused for the marriage of accused and victim. Therefore, she lodged the complaint on 1.7.2003.

In the first information, it is nowhere stated that the accused had promised the victim that he would marry her before he committed rape on her. The victim not only in the first information but also during trial has deposed that the accused had repeated sexual intercourse with her. It is only after the victim became pregnant, when she was carrying 4 months pregnancy, she approached the accused and insisted him to marry her and the accused refused. Therefore, the case of prosecution that the accused had promised the victim to marry her before he had sexual intercourse with her and the accused did not have intention to marry the victim or to fulfill his promise at any point of time cannot be accepted.

As already stated, the victim was more than 17 years at the time of incident. The evidence of victim that the accused committed rape on her by holding threats to her life repeatedly cannot be accepted. The conduct of victim would falsify her evidence. It is only after the victim became pregnant, she demanded the accused to marry her. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the victim was not a consenting party for what was being done to her by the accused.

In a decision reported in AIR 2011 SCW 2281 the Supreme Court has held that:

Where the victim has subjected herself to sex with the accused on several occasions that would show that she was a consenting party.

The evidence on record does not disclose that the consent of victim was obtained by dishonest representation.

On reappreciation of evidence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.