Case: Siddharth Ramkrishna Chitte v. State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 268 of 2020
Bench: Single judge bench of Justice M.G. Sewikar
Facts of the Case
An application was filed for grant of anticipatory bail for offences registered U/S 376, 417, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. The Informant is a twenty yr old girl who used to work at a poultry farm where she met with the applicant. The applicant promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with the girl twice under the promise of marriage. Later, the Informant realised that the applicant is already married and hence filed and FIR.
Contentions of the Applicant.
The Counsel for the Applicant contended that from the FIR filed, it is apparent that the prosecutrix (Informant) consented for the sexual intercourse as the Applicant promised to marry her.
Observations of the court.
In case of rape under Section 376 of the Penal Code, more particularly, in cases where consent is obtained by giving false promise of marriage, it has to be ascertained whether the accused did not have the intention to marry the prosecutrix right from the inception.
Sec 90 of The IPC talks about “consent known to be given under fear or misconception” the essentials of this section is that,(i) the consent must have been obtained under the fear or misconception (ii) the accused must have the knowledge that consent has been given under fear of misconception.
The Court observed that, prosecutrix (Informant) had no knowledge that the applicant is a married man. The Investigation papers don't reveal that the Informant knew that the Applicant was married before submitting herself for the sexual intercourse.
Judgment of the Court.
The Court stated that the accused had knowledge that he would not be able to marry the prosecutrix as long as his marriage is existing. This clearly shows that the applicant had the intention to deceive the prosecutrix by giving false promise of marriage. Therefore, the consent given by the prosecutrix is vitiated because of the concealment of material fact by the accused from her.
Hence, in view of the above-stated facts, the applicant is not entitled to be released.