Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction of a man who had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape). The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age and the absence of consent, and therefore, the charge of rape could not be sustained.

The appeal, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1448 of 2018, arose from Sessions Trial No. 461 of 2011, in which the appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The trial court had sentenced him to seven years in prison and a fine of ₹25,000 payable to the victim.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar delivered the judgment on 12 March 2021, allowing the appeal and directing the appellant’s immediate release.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by a girl aged about 14–15 years at the Sanokhar Police Station, Bhagalpur. She alleged that the accused (appellant) had induced her into a physical relationship by promising marriage. The relationship reportedly continued for six months at both their houses. When she became pregnant (about four months along), she requested marriage, but the accused refused, and his family asked her to undergo an abortion.

After the local police failed to act, she submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, leading to registration of Sanokhar P.S. Case No. 36/2010 under Sections 376 and 506/34 IPC.

Trial Court Findings

During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the victim, her parents, relatives, and the doctor who examined her. The defense produced one witness.

The trial court held the accused guilty under Section 376 IPC, finding that the victim was a minor and that her consent was irrelevant.

Grounds of Appeal

On appeal, the defense argued:

• The relationship between the two was consensual, and no evidence established that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident.
• The victim herself admitted that she willingly maintained the relationship and that her family was aware.
• The trial court ignored crucial infirmities, including lack of medical and documentary proof of age.
• Consent was not obtained by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation as defined under Section 25 IPC.

The State opposed, arguing that the victim’s testimony about her age (below 16) was unchallenged during cross-examination and that her consent, obtained under the pretext of marriage, was fraudulent.

Evidence Considered

• Victim’s Testimony (PW-7): Initially said the appellant forced her, but later admitted that the relationship was voluntary. She stated that both families were aware and no objections were raised.
• Mother’s Testimony (PW-1): Confirmed the relationship existed and that the case was filed only after refusal to marry.
• Medical Evidence (PW-9): The doctor found no signs of sexual assault and estimated the girl’s age between 17–18 years.
• Hostile Witnesses: Three witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-8) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
• Defense Witness: Confirmed that the victim later married another person in 2015.

Key Observations by the High Court

1. Consent and Fraud:
   The Court noted that “fraud” under Section 25 IPC requires intent to deceive from the beginning of the relationship. There was no evidence that the accused intended to defraud the victim at the inception. A later refusal to marry does not automatically make the consent fraudulent.
2. Age of the Victim:
   The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence—such as school certificates—to prove the victim’s age. The doctor’s approximation could not suffice. The Supreme Court, in Sunil v. State of Haryana (AIR 2010 SC 392) and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013 CrLJ 3976), had held that approximate age cannot form the basis of conviction. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (Rule 12) require preference to school records for age determination, which were not produced here.
3. Burden of Proof:
   The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely by probability. Failure to establish age or lack of consent was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
4. Precedents Cited:
   • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna @ Shambhoo Nath (2016) 1 SCC 696 — consensual intercourse with unproven minority cannot sustain conviction.
   • Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 9 SCC 248 — conviction set aside where prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor.

Court’s Conclusion and Order

• The Court found that the relationship was consensual and the victim was competent to consent, as her minority was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• It held that the trial court failed to properly appreciate evidence and misapplied the law.
• Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released immediately.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• This decision reiterates that consensual relationships between adults, even if not culminating in marriage, do not amount to rape unless coercion, deceit, or minority are proved.
• The ruling underscores the necessity of proving the victim’s age with reliable documentary evidence; mere assumptions or approximations cannot lead to conviction.
• It also reflects the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the principle of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, ensuring that emotional factors or social disapproval do not replace legal standards of evidence.
• The judgment further highlights that false promises of marriage do not automatically render consent invalid unless the prosecution can establish dishonest intent at inception.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Issue 1: Whether the victim was below the age of consent on the date of the incident.
  • Decision: No reliable proof of minority; age found to be 17–18 years.
• Issue 2: Whether consent obtained under a promise of marriage amounts to rape.
  • Decision: No; in absence of fraudulent intent, later refusal to marry does not vitiate consent.
• Issue 3: Whether conviction can rest on approximate age determination.
  • Decision: No; as held by the Supreme Court, approximate age cannot sustain conviction.
• Final Outcome: Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside; appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Sunil v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 392
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 3976
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna @ Shambhoo Nath, (2016) 1 SCC 696
• Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 9 SCC 248

Case Title

• Appellant v. State of Bihar (Patna High Court)

Case Number

• Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1448 of 2018

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 417

Coram and Names of Judges

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate
• For Respondent (State): Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP

Link to Judgment

MjQjMTQ0OCMyMDE4IzEjTg==-moPdDV9XjNY=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.