Karnataka HC Acquits Man Convicted Of Rape, Citing Unexplained 47-Day Complaint Delay And Marriage-Promise Precedent in a Love Affair

The prosecution alleged that the 19-year-old complainant met the appellant in 2013, entered into a relationship with him, and had sexual intercourse with him on 20 October 2013 after he promised to marry her.

She complained to the police on 7 December 2013, alleging that he later refused to marry her.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the former offence, and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the latter.

He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the unexplained delay in the complaint, and the medical evidence.

The Court considered Sections 376 and 417 IPC, governing rape and cheating, respectively, and Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for medical examination of a rape victim.

Relying on Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, the Court stated that consent to sexual intercourse given in a relationship on a promise to marry does not, without more, amount to consent given under a misconception of fact; a false promise to marry is not by itself a fact within the meaning of the relevant criminal law provision.

The prosecution was required to establish guilt through cogent and convincing evidence.

The Court found that the complaint was lodged 47 days after the alleged incident and that the prosecution had not explained the delay.

It also noted deficiencies in the medical evidence and the failure to explain the delay in the victim’s examination; the medical officer had not recorded a history of examination, and the Court found non-compliance with Section 164A CrPC.

The mother had not promptly informed the police or taken the complainant for medical examination, and the Court considered the conduct of both witnesses to create a reasonable doubt.

The complainant’s and her mother’s evidence was, in the Court’s view, unsupported by medical or other evidence.

Further, even assuming intercourse occurred on an assurance of marriage, the Court held, applying Uday, that this circumstance did not establish the offences charged.

It set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled, and the trial court was directed to refund any fine amount deposited.