Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage Constitutes Consent if Prosecutrix is a Major and Voluntarily Participates

The prosecutrix, a daily wage laborer, alleged that the appellant, a neighbor and co-worker, established a sexual relationship with her under a promise of marriage

She claimed she became pregnant, but the appellant allegedly administered medicine to terminate it before refusing marriage and marrying another woman on 12.05.2003

The Trial Court (Fast Track Court-9, Ranchi) convicted the appellant on 30.03.2005 under Sections 376 and 312 of the IPC, sentencing him to 7 years and 3 years R.I. respectively

The appellant challenged this, asserting the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident

1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any error of law necessitating interference

2. Whether the sexual relationship was consensual between two adults or amounted to rape under Section 376 IPC

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the offense of causing miscarriage under Section 312 IPC

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding punishment for rape and Section 312 of the IPC regarding causing miscarriage

legal distinction between a "promise to marry" and a "false promise to marry," emphasizing that consensual intercourse between adults does not constitute rape

evidentiary standard for medical age estimation, noting a typical two-year margin of error in ossification tests

The High Court found that the Trial Court overlooked vital contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony. While the Trial Court assessed her age as below 16 based on an ossification report (16-17 years), the High Court noted the prosecutrix herself declared she was 20 years old in the FIR and likely 19 at the time of the occurrence

Regarding Section 312 IPC, the medical examiner (P.W. 4) found no history or clinical evidence of abortion or pregnancy

The Court observed that the relationship was a long-standing "love affair" where physical intimacy was developed voluntarily by both parties, who were major

Consequently, the ingredients of "inducement" or "lack of consent" were not established, and the termination of pregnancy remained unproven

The Court answered the primary issue in the affirmative, finding the Trial Court's judgment legally erroneous

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.2005 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges and discharged from his bail bonds