K Chakra Pani
Introduction
Rape is an abhorrent offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS). Rape, as defined in both statutes, intends to protect women from such a grave offence which affects them physically, emotionally and mentally, causing trauma and being perceived differently in the eyes of society. The law may be a medieval one originating from the 1860 IPC, yet it has the aim of empowering women by protecting them from men raping them.
This provision aims to protect women and punish men for committing such spine-chilling crimes, be it a simple one or a heinous one. The victims can use this law to prosecute the accused and punish them for their acts. But as always, every law has the scope of not only usage but also misuse. And in present times, it is witnessed that such misuse of rape laws is frequent, and it goes to the extent that ‘genuine victims of rape are delayed justice due to such false rape cases before Courts’[1].The circumstances behind filing such bogus cases may differ, but the intention for doing it is the same: to harass the accused by abusing the process of law through the garb of ‘women’s safety’. False rape cases may be filed to frame the innocent accused and make him suffer through the trial process. At the same time, it is known as an open secret that the process of trial in India is immensely taxing, considering the number of years it takes to secure justice. This article will focus on the situations where the offense of rape on false promises of marriage can be used or misused against the accused.
The scope of misuse of the charge of ‘Rape on False Promise of Marriage’
Rape against the false promise of marriage was introduced by the Supreme Court in Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh[2] a as a separate yet significant part of the offence of ‘Rape’ under Section 375 of the IPC. The alleged victim can also misuse such cases to favour their case by harassing the innocent accused to be subjected to the wrath of the trial process, considering that the weightage given to the victim’s statements in the investigation is given higher value over those of the accused. Such a provision was brought under the ambit of Section 375 to protect women from men raping them on the false promise of marriage i.e., promising to marry with the intention and knowledge that such a promise is only to gain physical relations with the victim and not honouring that promise later intentionally. The Allahabad High Court stated that genuine cases of rape are now an exception, as women are filing cases after having long physical relations with the accused.[3]
While the accused will be prosecuted only based on evidence collected, there is a rise in cases where such an offence is misused by the victims to harass the accused for not fulfilling any promises made or for any quarrel between them. The law may be used as a tool to abuse the process of law. It is not known that rape is attached to a social stigma around the victim’s image i.e., she is a victim of rape, she has lost her ‘purity’, and she is now seen differently from society due to the acts of another person. The Courts have come up with a system of anonymising the names of the victims while delivering judgements, to protect the identity of the victim to save her dignity and image in society, so that she is not stigmatised. This was a direction of the Supreme Court in Birbal Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh[4] and subsequently re-stated by the Kerala High Court.[5]
However, the stigma attached to the rape accused is often overlooked, be it a false case or a genuine case. The accused are now seen through a different lens, viewed as a ‘rapist’ in the society’s eyes. He is treated and seen differently and is avoided by society for his heinous actions. While such treatment is justified for genuine cases of rape accused, this would not be justifiable for those who are falsely incriminated. Merely being charged with rape is a social stigma in itself, and false conviction of the accused would lead to disastrous consequences. He would be traumatised by the trial process, the judgement delivered, and the subsequent treatment by society. The innocence of the accused is now demolished with wild allegations in the FIR implicating the accused, implying that the law is heavily biased against males.[6] Thus, there is a need to protect the identity of the accused, not only in genuine rape cases but especially in false rape cases levied against them, which is recognised by the Himachal Pradesh High Court[7] and the Supreme Court[8]. There is a pending case before the Supreme Court to issue guidelines on protecting the identity and reputation of the accused in sexual offences cases.[9]
About the Case
The victim was acquainted with the accused before attaining the age of 18. While preparing for their Public Service Examinations, the couple fell in love, the accused promised to marry her and they subsequently had physical relations. As a consequence, the victim got pregnant. In her complaint, it was stated that she was forcibly taken by the accused to a hospital to undergo an abortion, after which he maintained his promise of marrying her, but only after the completion of such examinations. The parents of the accused declined to such marriage as she was from a Scheduled Caste. This led to the victim filing a case of rape on false promise of marriage against the accused and his parents.
Upon investigation, the victim stated in her police statement that she was not forced by the accused to undergo an abortion, but the couple agreed to take Homeopathic treatment to undergo the procedure. The court noticed this inconsistency during the trial, to which the victim accepted incorporating the version given in her police statement into her complaint.
Arguments of Appellant–Victim
The counsel for the appellant–victim contended on the maintainability and jurisdiction of the High Court, stating that the High Court could not quash the proceedings against the Respondent–Accused vide its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The argument was that the Court did not take into consideration the evidence placed and the chargesheet filed before it, which led to the gross error of quashing the proceedings. There was a prima facie case of the accused raping the victim on the false promise of marriage, along with evidence showing that the victim was forced to undergo an abortion at the hospital by the accused.
Arguments of Respondent–Accused
The counsel contended that the High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC after consideration of relevant facts and evidence placed before it, concluding that prima facie, the ingredients for the offence were not met. The evidence placed was not sufficient to meet the ingredients of the offence charged. This was supported by the cases of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.[10] and Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.[11] which held that if the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of IPC are not met, the proceedings may be quashed. The present case is a way to harass not only the accused but also his parents.
Jurisdiction on rape cases under Section 482 CrPC
The Court took steps to determine the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 of CrPC in quashing proceedings of rape on false promise of marriage. The Court referred to the State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.[12] to decide on the jurisdiction conferred by Section 482, holding that there are categories of cases where such jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of a court. The categories which apply to the case are:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”[13]
The Court held that though the power to quash proceedings of rape must be used sparingly only in the rarest of rare cases, such power is justified when there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The present case involves charges that prima facie do not constitute an offence. There are many weak factors in the case: the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence, the complaint and police statements contrast each other, and the victim’s mala fides to charge the accused falsely. These factors form a case that is suitable to be quashed by the High Court vide its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Thus, the High Court in the present case has exercised its jurisdiction and powers rightly and that continuation of the proceedings before the Court would lead to an abuse of the process of law, leading to travesty of the legal process. The quashing of proceedings on grounds of insufficient grounds is valid.
Inconsistency in statements – ground to quash case
The Court examined the ingredients required for the charge of rape on false promise of marriage under Section 375 of IPC. Before going into the same, the Court highlighted the loopholes in the Prosecution’s case, which implied it to be a false case of a charge of rape. The victim had changed the version of events, contrary to the ones present in the complaint and police statement. Not only were the statements inconsistent, but also that the evidence did not support her initial version of the complaint. The complainant stated that she was forcibly dragged to the hospital by the accused to undergo an abortion. However, the witnesses from such hospital invalidated the same, stating that there was no record of her admission in the hospital, nor was there any facility for admitting the victim due to COVID. This invalidated the victim’s statement in the complaint at large, and this was supported by the victim’s restatement before the Police that she was not forced by the accused. This was implied by the Court as a strong and evident ground for treating the present case as a false case with the intention to harass the accused and deserves quashing by the High Court.
The factual matrix of the case is similar to that of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.[14]where the court considered the legal provisions and requirements for a case to fall under rape on false promise of marriage under Section 375 of IPC. The ‘consent’ obtained must be coloured with a misconception of fact, and such a misconception must arise when the promise of marriage was given in bad faith with no intention of adhering to it when given. In the present case, there was no such misconception of fact used to obtain the consent of the victim. Both had explicitly agreed to marry each other after their examinations which were agreed upon by the parents, but they were later refused. Such a case can withstand the test of mala fide intention, as there was no such intention of non-adherence after such physical relations. The statements made by the victims in both cases were false, creating a false narrative that brought the accused on trial as a method of punishment for the victim.
Conclusion
Rape as an offence affects the public at large, and its implications are felt not only by the victim but also by the accused. Society is considered the ultimate judge, as humans live in a society at the end of the day. The judicial orders acquitting or convicting him will have only a mere impact on his image in society, but his image is not tarnished by the charge of rape. Such false charges of rape on innocent people with genuine intentions impact their overall life, as they are now branded as the ones who were charged with rape, whether or not they committed it. To ensure their safety, the Court must grant the right to privacy to the accused, especially the one who is falsely implicated. The Court’s move to anonymise the names of accused in false cases of rape, including those of rape on the false promise of marriage, is a welcome step in ensuring that the right to privacy is not only available to the victims but also to the accused persons and is a granted one when they are falsely implicated though being innocent.
[1] State v. Satish & Ors., FIR No. 353/13PS, Addl. Sessions Court, Delhi.
[2] 2019 SCC OnLine SC 509.
[3] Vivek Kumar Maurya vs. State Of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 23551 of 2023, Allahabad HC.
[4] SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 7772/2021, Supreme Court.
[5] XXX v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL.) No. 318 of 2022, Kerala High Court.
[6] Vivek Kumar (supra note 3).
[7] State Of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 67.
[8] Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937.
[9] Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(CRL.) No. __/2019
[10] (2019) 18 SCC 191.
[11] 22022 SCC OnLine SC 1032.
[12] 1992 Supp (1) 335.
[13] Id. at note 12.
[14] (2019) 9 SCC 608.