Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:26719-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 54 of 2024 Victim ... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kamal Kant Singh Munda, S/o Dashrath Singh Munda, R/o Village- Maipa, P.O.- Kota, P.S.- Arki, District- Khunti-835225. ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Appellant : Dr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, Adv. For the Resp.-State : A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. --------- C.A.V. on 06/08/2026 Pronounced on 29/08/2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Dr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 2, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 59/2020, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 herein has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of the victim, in which, it has been stated that about two years back she had developed acquaintance with the accused/respondent no. 2 and both used to regularly meet. The accused wanted to establish physical relationship with the informant but the informant refused, at which, the accused had given her an assurance of marriage and on this pretext the accused on several occasions exploited the victim sexually as a result of which she became pregnant. It has been alleged that on the allurement of visiting Ranchi the accused had taken the informant to a Clinic for aborting the fetus but the said information was given by the informant to her father after which he came and took her back to his house. Based on the aforesaid allegations Khunti (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 21/2019 was instituted under Section 376(1)/417 and 315 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 59/2020. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 376(2)(n)/417/315 and 506 of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Victim) has proved her written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. She and the accused had a love affair about 2 years back and in course of such affair physical relationship was established. When she refused to agree for physical intimacy, the accused used to assure her of marriage and due to regular sexual relationship, she had become pregnant. When she was carrying a pregnancy of eight months the accused had taken her to Maa Clinic for termination of her pregnancy but when she called her father he had taken her home. She has stated that a meeting was called in the village but the elder brother of the accused had disclosed that the accused has fled away somewhere. She has proved her signature in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not know that her father had instituted a case on 21.02.2013 against Ashutosh Mahto for enticing her away for the purposes of marriage. She had wanted to solemnize marriage with the accused. She had not disclosed about the love affair with the accused to either her parents or to any villagers for two years. She would willingly go and meet with the accused after talking to him over phone. The case has been instituted by her since the accused did not marry her. She has deposed that the house of the accused is situated at a distance of 2-3 houses from her house. 6. P.W.2 (Ghashni Devi) is the mother of the victim who has stated that the accused on the pretext of marriage had sexually exploited her daughter for two years as a result of which she conceived. The accused had taken her daughter to Ranchi for terminating her pregnancy which information was given by her daughter to her husband after which her husband brought her back. A Panchayati was held but the brother of the accused had disclosed that the accused had fled away somewhere. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she and her family members had gone to the house of the accused for marriage negotiations and at that time she was not aware that her daughter was pregnant. Her statement was never recorded by the Police. She had never seen her daughter with the accused. When her daughter became pregnant, she was staying in a lodge in Bundu. 7. P.W.3 (Babu Lal Munda) has stated that he knows Sukhdeo Singh Munda and he frequents the house of Sukhdeo Singh Munda. He had come to know from Sukhdeo Singh Munda and the victim that the accused on the pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with the victim as a result of which the victim had become pregnant. He has stated that the accused had taken the victim to Ranchi for getting the fetus terminated but when the victim had informed about the same to her father he had come to Ranchi and had taken her back to his house. A meeting was held in the village regarding the said incident but the accused had not attended the meeting and, therefore, no decision could be taken. The victim had later on given birth to a daughter. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Sukhdeo Singh Munda is his brother. The Police had not recorded his statement. The incident was disclosed to him by Sukhdeo Singh Munda. He has stated that Sukhdeo Singh Munda had never disclosed to him that the victim had eloped with Ashutosh Mahto for which Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 12/2013 was instituted. He has not seen the victim and the accused going around. 8. P.W.4 (Dr. P.L. Sinha) was posted in Maa Clinic, Namkum as a Medical Officer and on 30.08.2019 he had examined the victim and had found her pregnant with the expected date of delivery being 20.09.2019. The prescriptions prepared by him have been marked as X, X1 and X2 for identification. In cross-examination, he has deposed that on 23.10.2019 the father of the victim had brought the victim for check-up. The victim had not come to the Clinic for the purposes of aborting the fetus. When the victim was operated upon, he was not in the Clinic. 9. P.W.5 (Duryodhan Munda) is acquainted with both the sides and he has stated that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused as a result of which the victim became pregnant. Since the accused did not solemnize marriage with the victim the case was instituted. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his evidence is based on the rumors he had heard in the village. He is not aware that on 28.01.2013 the victim had eloped with Ashutosh Mahto for the purposes of marriage for which Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 12/2013 was instituted. The victim was a major and she willingly had entered into a relationship with the accused. His statement was never recorded by the Police. He had never seen the victim and the accused together. 10. P.W.6 (Guruwa Munda) has stated that there was a relationship between the victim and the accused as a result of which the victim became pregnant. Since the accused did not solemnize marriage with the victim she had lodged the case. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the Police. The victim was a major and she had willingly entered into a relationship with the accused. Sukhdeo Singh Munda had never disclosed to him about the incident. The victim used to stay at Bundu in a rented house and he is not aware as to which persons the victim used to meet. 11. P.W.7 (Rash Bihari Swansi) has stated that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused as a result of which physical relationship was established and the accused had refused to solemnize marriage. A meeting was also held in the village regarding the said issue but no decision could be arrived at. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the victim and the accused together. The Police had not recorded his statement. 12. P.W.8 (Jawahar Choudhary) was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Mahila P.S. Khunti and on 29.09.2019 the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila P.S. had handed over the investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 21/2019 to him. After taking over investigation, he had recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statement of Sukhdeo Singh. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a mud tiled house of the informant situated at village Maipa. In course of investigation, he had recorded the statements of other witnesses. He had sent the victim for medical examination to Sadar Hospital, Khunti and had got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident the informant was aged 23 years. The informant either in her written report or in her re- statement had not disclosed the date and time as well as the place where physical relationship was established. 13. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, in which, he has denied the allegations made against him. 14. It has been submitted by Dr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the respondent no. 2 by not properly appreciating the fact that the evidence of the witnesses consistently points towards the respondent no. 2 establishing sexual relationship with the appellant on the false pretext of marriage. It has been submitted that intention to deceive the appellant into entering a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage was from the very inception of the relationship and, therefore, Section 90 of the IPC would squarely apply. The appellant on account of such physical relationship had become pregnant and had also given birth to a daughter. Reference has been made to the case of “Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another” reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398. Page 7 of 10 15. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the evidence of the appellant (P.W.1) would clearly demonstrate that she was having a love affair with the respondent no. 2 and had consented to the sexual advances of the respondent no. 2 and the same would further indicate that the respondent no. 2 had not deceived the appellant to enter into a physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage from the very initiation of the relationship. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 17. The basis for institution of the case against the respondent no. 2 is of refusing to solemnize marriage with the appellant despite sexually exploiting her on the pretext of marriage for a considerable length of time. The evidence of the appellant who has been examined as P.W.1 assumes utmost significance as she has stated that the relationship had continued for two years from 2017 to 2019 as both were in love with each other. Such affair was kept under wraps as neither she had disclosed such affair to her parents nor to the villagers. She has stated that she used to willingly meet the respondent no. 2 after calling him on phone. P.W.1 has also stated that she wanted to solemnize marriage with respondent no. 2. P.W.2 has accepted the fact that both used to meet and in course of which physical relationship was established. 18. What would transpire from the evidence of the appellant is a clear case of consent on her part and the sexual relationship was established as a consequence to the intimate relationship the appellant and the respondent no. 2 shared. The evidence of the appellant does not speak about the relationship having developed only on the promise of marriage by the respondent no. 2 but such promise was preceded by an already existing love affair and the willingness on the part of the appellant to enter into such relationship. 19. In the case of “Mahesh Damu Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another” (supra), it has been held as follows: “29. It must also be clear that for a promise to be a false promise to amount to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90IPC, it must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive the woman to persuade her to have a physical relationship. Therefore, if it is established that such consent was given under a misconception of fact, the said consent is vitiated and not a valid consent. In this regard we may refer to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] , in which it was held as follows: (SCC pp. 682-84, paras 21 & 24) “21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused 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 latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. 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 misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on 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 so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives. *** 24. Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The ‘failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate relevance’. Section 90IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.” (emphasis in original and supplied) 30. It may be also noted that there may be occasions where a promise to marry was made initially but for various reasons, a person may not be able to keep the promise to marry. If such promise is not made from the very beginning with the ulterior motive to deceive her, it cannot be said to be a false promise to attract the penal provisions of Section 375IPC, punishable under Section 376IPC. 31. In the present case, even assuming that the appellant had made the promise since 2008 when they met for the first time, the fact that they remained unmarried for a long period till 2017 without there being any protest or objection by the complainant, does not indicate the intention at the initial stage itself to make the promise falsely to marry the complainant. Making an allegation of non-fulfilment of promise to marry without undue delay by the promisee would, on the other hand, be an indicator of a false promise being made from the initial stage. In the present case, what is not in dispute is that the physical relationship between the appellant and the complainant continued for a long period of about a decade and as such it is difficult to infer that the appellant had made a false promise since the initial stage and continued to make false promises to marry her on the basis of which she also continued to have physical relationship with him. 20. The entire gamut of allegations do not reveal that there was a misconception of fact in terms of Section 90 of the IPC and the learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that no case u/s 376 (2)(n) of the IPC is made out. The other offences for which the respondent no. 2 has been charged are also not made out in view of the aforesaid finding. 21. Thus, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 2, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 59/2020, and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 22. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated, the 29th August, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 03 / 09 /2026