Karnataka High Court overturns acquittal, sentences man to life for sex induced by promise of marriage

The complainant, Manjula, alleged that Devaraju repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her after promising to marry her, and threatened her when she refused to terminate her pregnancy.

She gave birth to a daughter.

The prosecution relied, among other evidence, on her testimony, the medical evidence and a DNA report identifying Devaraju as the child’s biological father

The Sessions Court acquitted Devaraju of offences under Sections 417, 376 and 506 IPC, treating the relationship as consensual.

Manjula appealed under Section 372 CrPC

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted Devaraju; it then heard him on sentence

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse and required appellate interference, including conversion of the acquittal into a conviction

2. What orders, including sentence and victim compensation, should follow from the appeal

The Court considered Sections 375 and 376 IPC concerning rape, Section 90 IPC concerning consent given under fear or misconception, and Sections 417 and 506 IPC concerning cheating and criminal intimidation

It also referred to Section 357A CrPC as the basis for directing victim compensation

On appellate interference with an acquittal, the Court relied on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, represented by Inspector of Police (18 July 2023), stating that an acquittal may be reversed where cogent evidence has not been properly appreciated and that failure causes a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court held that the trial court had focused on the complainant’s admissions that she and Devaraju were in a relationship and had sexual intercourse, without properly considering her evidence that he repeatedly promised marriage and that she continued the relationship in reliance on that promise

It also found that the trial court had failed to assess the complaint and testimony concerning the alleged threat, or to give adequate consideration to the DNA evidence identifying Devaraju as the child’s father

In the High Court’s view, the absence of physical injuries did not establish consent in the circumstances alleged, and the trial court’s omissions amounted to perversity causing a miscarriage of justice.

It imposed one year’s imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 under Section 417; life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,00,000 under Section 376; and two years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 under Section 506, with the sentences to run concurrently

It directed that ₹5,00,000 of the fine be placed in a fixed deposit for the child until majority and that the remaining ₹2,00,000 be released to the complainant; it also directed the District Legal Services Authority to award compensation within four months.