Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 92 of 2024 “X” ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. William Tirkey, S/o Peter Tirkey, R/o Lodhma, P.O. & P.S.- Lapung, Dist.- Ranchi. … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Amlan Palit, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. For the Resp. no. 2 : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Adv. ---- Dated : 29/ 08 /2026 JUDGMENT Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Amlan Palit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.04.2024 passed by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned A.J.C.-VII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 89/2021, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 in this appeal has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of victim ‘X’ in which it has been stated that she was having a love affair with William Tirkey (respondent no. 2) since the year 2009. It has been alleged that on 15.08.2009, the accused had taken the informant to his house at Lodhma on the pretext of solemnizing marriage and established physical relationship with her in an under-constructed house. The informant was Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 2 thereafter, left at her home by the accused. After some time, in November 2011, the informant was kept by the accused on rent in the house of Dahri Orain. The fetus of the informant was got aborted by the accused. It has been alleged that the accused used to frequent the place of stay of the informant and he also did not entertain the plea of the informant to visit her house. The accused and his family members had later on refused to get the marriage of the informant solemnized with the accused. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Lapung P.S. Case No. 24/2020 was instituted for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 313 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 S.T. Case No. 89/2021. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 376(2)(n), 313 and 417 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 seven witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 Victim ‘X’ has stated that she and the appellant were having a love affair. On 15.08.2009, she was taken by the accused to his village at Lodhma and had put her up in an under-constructed house and on the promise of solemnizing marriage, had established physical relation with her. In the year 2011, she was kept in the house of Dahri Orain and her fetus was also aborted. After staying with her for two years, the accused had left for his house but he continued to regularly meet her. She has stated that on several occasions, she had insisted for marriage and despite giving her assurance, the accused had married elsewhere. She had helped the accused in all means including providing money. When the accused had refused to solemnise marriage with her, she had instituted the Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 3 case. The written report submitted by her has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. She has also proved a signature in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of lodging the case, she had disclosed her age as 29 years. After 15.08.2009, when physical relationship was established, she used to give money to the accused and had also given him an ATM card enabling the accused to withdraw money as and when desired. She had not instituted any case regarding the incident of 15.08.2009. She had not disclosed about the incident with the accused on 15.08.2009 to anyone. She has deposed that she had willingly stayed with the accused in the rented house of Dahri Orain from 2011 to 2013. She does not have any proof of termination of her pregnancy. It is true that if the accused had solemnized marriage with her, she would not have filed the case. P.W.2 Sukhdeo Oraon is the brother of victim ‘X’ who has stated that his sister and the accused were having a love affair since 2009 and on 15.08.2009, the accused had taken his sister to his house at Lodhma and established sexual relation with her. In the year 2011, the accused had kept his sister in a rented house in Bero where she stayed for two years and during this period, her fetus was also terminated. He has stated that his sister used to bear the educational expenses of the accused. The accused used to assure his sister of marriage and on this issue, he would sometimes assault his sister. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to meet his sister in the rented house of Dahri Orain and he had found his sister and the accused happily residing there. Sometimes he used to stay with them. P.W.3 Durga Oraon alias Durga Tirkey has stated that he was aware about the love affair between victim ‘X’ and the accused and sexual relationship was also established Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 4 between them. The accused, despite giving assurances, had solemnized marriage with another girl. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the incident was disclosed to her by victim ‘X’. P.W.4 Sudhir Oraon is the cousin brother of victim ‘X’ who has stated about the love affair between victim ‘X’ and the accused and their staying together in a rented house for two years and despite giving assurance, the accused had solemnized marriage elsewhere. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his evidence is based on whatever he had been asked to tell by victim ‘X’. P.W.5 Suman Oraon has stated that he does not know the nature of relationship existing between victim ‘X’ and the accused. He also does not have any knowledge about the abortion carried out on victim ‘X’. He does not know about any case instituted by victim ‘X’ against the accused. P.W.6 Sushil Kumar Marandi was posted as a Probationer Sub-Inspector of Police in Lapung P.S. and on 24.10.2020, he had taken over the investigation of Lapung P.S. Case No. 24/2020. He has proved the endorsement on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. He had inspected the first place of occurrence which is an under constructed house of Budhwa Oraon situated in the road going from village Lodhma to village Koynara. The second place of occurrence is the house of Sukra Oraon situated at village Tikratoli. He had prepared the map of both the places of occurrence. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He had also got done the medical examination of victim ‘X’. The accused was arrested from village Lodhma and an arrest memo was prepared which has Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 5 been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. He has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim ‘X’ which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet. P.W.7 Dr. Seema Gupta was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi and on 26.10.2020, she had examined victim ‘X’ and had found the following: “Height – 152 cm. Weight – 53 kg. Teeth upper lower – 14/13. Mark of identification – Mole on right feet. Menstrual history – Due in one week. On examination, there was o external or internal injuries on her body. Her secondary sexual character is well developed. UPT is negative. Her ultrasound examination of uterus and ovaries were normal.” It was opined that there was no recent sign of sexual abuse. She has proved the medical report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Amlan Palit, learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no. 2 had sexually abused the appellant for a long duration on the pretext of marriage and later on he had solemnized marriage with another girl. The appellant had acceded to the sexual overtures of the respondent no. 2 on a misconception of fact as envisaged under Section 90 IPC and, therefore, the respondent no. 2 is liable to be convicted for an offence of rape. 7. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in the Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 6 institution of the First Information Report. The appellant had consented to the sexual advances of the respondent no. 2 and had stayed together for a considerable length of time and, therefore, Section 90 IPC will not be applicable. The learned trial court has appropriately considered the evidence on record while acquitting the respondent no. 2 and the same needs no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. It is the admitted case of victim ‘X’ that she was having a love affair with the respondent no. 2 since the year 2009 and she has given instances of staying with the respondent no. 2 for a considerable length of time. The appellant/victim ‘X’ is a major and she had willingly stayed with the respondent no. 2 at various places. The allegation of establishing sexual relationship with the appellant by the respondent no. 2 is of 15.08.2009, but if the appellant was at all aggrieved with such act, it would have resulted in a complaint instituted by the appellant but failure to do so strengthens the assertion that the appellant was in love with the respondent no. 2 which in fact is also admitted by the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 was also accepted by the family members of the appellant as P.W. 2, the brother of the appellant has stated about frequently visiting the house of the appellant where both the appellant and the respondent no. 2 resided and he also sometimes used to stay with them. The acknowledgement of the relationship with the respondent no. 2 by the appellant and that too for a sufficient length of time would be a feature highlighting the consent of the appellant and the same cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact. In such context, reference may be reference we made to the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2024) 11 SCC 398, Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 7 wherein 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 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 8 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 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 9 beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her.” 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.” 10. The learned trial court after discussion of the evidence on record has rightly come to a conclusion that if the relationship Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:26803-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 92 OF 2024 10 is not working out the same cannot make out an offence punishable under section 376(2)(n) IPC. So far as Section 417 IPC is concerned, no case of cheating is made out against the respondent no. 2 and as regards, the charge under Section 313 IPC is concerned, no documentary proof has been brought on record by the prosecution and even the version of the appellant is vague and not supported by any other materials. 11. Thus, on consideration of the evidence on record and on the basis of the discussions made hereinbefore, we do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2024 passed by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned A.J.C.-VII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 89/2021 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 12. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 29th Day of August, 2026 Preet/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 08 /09/2026.