1 2025:CGHC:13433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 441 of 2025 1 - Pratap Kumar Ratre S/o Komal Singh Ratre Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Katekoni, P.S. City Kotwali, Sarangarh District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2025, passed in Sessions Case No. 30/2024 by which the 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376(2)(n) of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 6 months. U/s 417 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, further R.I. for 1 month. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused resided in close proximity to the victim’s residence, the accused, persistently urged the victim to engage in a physical relationship, professing his love and proposing marriage. On March 17, 2024, at 12:30 PM while the victim was home alone, the accused contacted her and under the guise of marriage engaged in sexual relations with her. Subsequently, he continued to exploit the promise of marriage to maintain a physical relationship which also occurred on April 12, 2024 at 1:00 AM. When the victim’s menstrual cycle ceased, she informed the accused, who then provided her with a pregnancy test kit, confirming her pregnancy. Following this revealation, the accused began to exert pressure on the victim to terminate the pregnancy, and when she requested him to marry her, he declined her proposal, the victim narrated the story to her parents after which the written report to the above mentioned effect was submitted by the victim in police station Sarangarh and registered 3 the Crime No. 344/2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC, after the investigation charge sheet was filed before the trial court. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 12 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further contended that there was a love affair between the parties on account of which the physical relationship was established by the consent of the victim. The appellant neither forced the victim to establish physical relationship nor made any promises to marriage. There was a consensual relationship established by the parties. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the victim (PW-1), Dr. Shruti Dubey which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, 4 Sarangarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 417 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. PW-1/victim has deposed in her statement that she knows the accused from her childhood and they are neighbours. She further deposed that her parents went out of the town to earn money and her uncle (चाचा) used to quarrel at home because of which she along with her grandmother used to sleep at accused’s house. The relation between both the families, i.e., family of the victim and of the accused, were very good. In the month of March, 2024, the accused took her phone number and they started talking over mobile and in messages. On 17th March, 2024, the accused called her and promised her that he will marry her and they established a physical relation at his house. On 11th April, 2024, when the victim told the accused that she has missed her periods, the accused gave her a pregnancy test kit and upon checking the victim found that she is pregnant. On 12th April, 2024 the victim told the appellant that she is pregnant upon which the appellant asked her to abort the child. She further deposed that on 26th April, 2024 there was a communal meeting between the families of the accused and victim in which the accused told that even if his DNA will match with that of the child then also he will not marry her. On the date of evidence, i.e. on 01.08.2024, the victim was 5 months 5 pregnant with the accused. She has deposed that her date of birth is 03.10.2005. The victim in para 18 of her cross-examination has deposed that the victim and the accused are neighbours and there was a love affair between them. 9. PW-2/ Dr. Shruti Dubey in her deposition has stated that she did not found any external or internal injury on the body of the victim. The secondary sexual organs were fully developed and Urine Pregnancy Test was positive. 10. From perusal of the statement given by the victim it is crystal clear that on the date of offence the victim was major and there was a love affair by and between the parties. The accused promised the victim that he will marry her and on the basis of that promise, the victim and the appellant established the physical relationship consensually. After knowing the fact that the victim is pregnant the accused refused to marry her and advised her to abort the child. 11. Now the question for consideration arises that whether the promise of marriage made by the accused was false promise or breach of promise? 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT Delhi) 2023 (SC) 66 para 20: “20. The bone of contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her and subsequently he did not marry, and therefore such consent was no consent in the eye of law 6 and the case fell under the Clause- Secondly of Section 375 of IPC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376. As stated earlier, each case would depend upon its proved facts before the Court. ” 13. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. It must be very carefully examined whether the accused/appellant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the matter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on 7 account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of IPC. 14. P.W.-01/prosecutrix has deposed in para 21 of her statement that vkjksih ds cqykus ij ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa [kqn ls vkjksih ds ikl xbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih us esjs lkFk tcjnLrh dHkh Hkh ‘kkjhfjd laca/k ugha cuk;s gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa Lo;a dh lgefr ls vkjksih ds lkFk ‘kkjhfjd laca/k fcuk fdlh tksj ncko ds Lora= bPNk ls cukbZ FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd lekt ds }kjk ncko nsus ij fjiksVZ dh xbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa tks xHkZorh gksuk dfFkr dh gwa] rHkh eSaus vius ekrk firk dks [kcj fd;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ;fn eSa xHkZorh ugha gqbZ gksrh rks vius ekrk firk dks [kcj ugha djrhA 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the evidence that the accused and prosecutrix are neighbours and knew each other since childhood. Also, prosecutrix and her grandmother used to sleep at the house of accused. Considering the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 376 of IPC. 8 16. In that view of the matter, the accused deserves to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 17. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 30/2024 is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him and is directed to be set free forthwith. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. 18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima