Promise To Marry: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rape Acquittal, Cites Complainant's Own Reluctance To Marry
The Karnataka High Court rejected the State's appeal challenging a man's acquittal accused of rape on false promise of marriage, after noting that the complainant–who met the accused on a matrimonial site–had herself stated that she was unwilling to marry to him.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing the State's appeal challenging sessions court order which had acquitted accused for offences under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 376(rape), 420(cheating), 504 and 506(criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC.
Taking note of the trial court order which had considered the complainant's (PW1) statement the bench said:
"Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".
The prosecution had alleged that the complainant came into contact with accused through Shaadi.Com in March 2020 and remained in contact with him for three months.
It was alleged that on 22.05.2020, during the lockdown period, accused took the complainant to his house, where she was allegedly confined for four days, during which accused No.1 allegedly raped her under the guise of marrying her. It is alleged that on 28.05.2020, the accused dropped her near her home; he subsequently turned hostile and stopped responding to her calls and was not traceable. Based on the complaint, the Police registered the case and investigated the matter.
The bench noted that the trial Court took note of complainant's evidence in detail and considered the material on record. It said that the trial Court had noted that the complainant had categorically stated that she was not willing to marry accused as she did not have faith in him; this created a doubt in the mind of the trial Court in believing her version.
It had noted that complainant had stated that due to threats posed to her life by accused No.1, she did not disclose the incident to the neighbours. However, the trial Court did not accept this explanation, as in her cross examination she had categorically stated that she was active on social media and made comments thereon; therefore the trial Court held that the alleged threat was not believable.
Another complaint was made by the complainant before Deputy Commissioner of Police - South was brought which was forwarded to the concerned Police Station for enquiry.
"A perusal of the same reveals that PW1 had requested the police authorities to call accused No.1 and advise him. In Ex.P1 also, PW1 specifically stated that she was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she was not having any confidence in him. The trial Court discussed both the oral and documentary evidence available on record in detail...," the bench noted.
The bench further observed that the trial court had also taken note of complainant's allegation that the accused made her stay in his house for four days and had sexual intercourse with her.
"The trial Court observed that even if such statement is accepted, it does not disclose forcible sexual intercourse and appears to be consensual. It was also noted that PW1 did not specifically state that she was subjected to forcible rape. Even assuming that there was physical contact, it could only be treated as consensual and not as alleged by the prosecution and even taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein it has been held that 'consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape'," the bench said.
The appellant contended that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused and failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and material available on record.
It was contended that the trial court failed to note that the accused had committed an offence against the victim, merely on the ground that the medical report did not disclose any external injuries.
It was further contend that this approach of the trial Court was erroneous, as it failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence, which discloses that the hymen of the victim was not intact, which, according to the appellant clearly indicated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.
The appeal was dismissed.
Case title: THE STATE v/s ABU SALMAN SAIFAN SAB THAMBE and Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.812 OF 2025 (A)