Long-Term Consensual Physical Relationship Stemming from Pretext of Marriage Amounts to Rape Due to Misconception of Fact

The informant (prosecutrix) alleged that the appellant, a BSF Jawan, engaged in a love affair with her for two years and committed sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage

The relationship began after they met at a wedding; the appellant later took her to Cooch Behar where the first act occurred, followed by multiple stays in hotels in Tezpur as husband and wife

When the prosecutrix requested a court marriage, the appellant refused, citing construction delays

She subsequently discovered he was seeking another bride. Upon confronting him at the BSF Headquarters in Shillong, the appellant produced documents claiming he was already married to someone else

The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC

The appellant challenged this, claiming the relationship was consensual and lacked the "misconception of fact" required to vitiate consent

1. Whether the physical relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual or if consent was obtained under a "misconception of fact" due to a false promise of marriage

2. Whether the conviction under Section 417 IPC (Cheating) is sustainable alongside Section 376 IPC

The court primarily applied Section 375 of the IPC regarding rape, specifically focusing on "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the IPC which vitiates consent

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that a promise of marriage must be false from the inception (given in bad faith without intent to adhere) and have a direct nexus to the decision to engage in sex to constitute rape

Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh for the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix is a competent witness equivalent to an injured witness and can form the sole basis of conviction if found credible

The Court analyzed the appellant's intent by scrutinizing his conduct from the inception of the relationship. It noted that the promise of marriage was made at the very first instance of sexual intercourse in Cooch Behar

The Court found the appellant's lack of bona fide intent evidenced by his refusal to sign court marriage papers provided by the prosecutrix and his simultaneous search for another bride

Crucially, the Court highlighted the appellant's act of producing "fake documents" claiming a prior marriage before his Commanding Officer as proof that he never intended to marry the prosecutrix

The court distinguished this from a mere "breach of promise," concluding it was a "false promise" intended to deceive from the start, thereby vitiating the prosecutrix's consent under Section 90 IPC

The hotel registers (PW3, 4, 5) corroborated the physical intimacy, and the prosecutrix's testimony was deemed reliable and unrebutted

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 IPC and found no error in the conviction under Section 417 IPC, noting the charge was properly altered from Section 420 IPC under Section 222 of the CrPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Sonitpur, sentencing the appellant to 10 years for rape and 1 year for cheating, was affirmed