Jharkhand High Court Ruling on False Promise of Marriage
In a significant legal development, the Jharkhand High Court has ruled that concealing an existing marriage while promising to marry a widow to induce a sexual relationship constitutes rape. This judgment was delivered in the case of Ramesh Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, presided over by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava.
Concealment of Marriage and Misconception of Fact
Justice Srivastava concluded that the accused’s failure to disclose his marital status indicated that he never intended to fulfill his promise of marriage. Instead, the promise was made solely to satisfy his sexual desires. “The concealment of his marital status demonstrates an intent from the start to deceive the prosecutrix and exploit her sexually,” the court remarked.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal by a man against his conviction by a trial court in Gumla. The prosecution revealed that the woman, who had become a widow within two years of her marriage due to her husband’s death from tuberculosis, was living with her parents. She accused the appellant of raping her in December 1999 in a forest, under the threat of violence. He subsequently promised to marry her and support her financially.
The woman alleged that based on this assurance, she entered into a sexual relationship with the accused and lived with him for several years. She became pregnant twice, with both pregnancies allegedly terminated by the appellant. An FIR was lodged in January 2004 after the accused continually delayed the marriage and eventually refused to marry her.
Court’s Deliberation and Verdict
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was filed only after the relationship soured. He maintained that it was a breach of promise to marry, not a false promise from the inception.
The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents distinguishing between a false promise of marriage and a mere breach of promise. The Court emphasized that consent is invalidated when a promise to marry is deceitful from the beginning, aimed solely at obtaining sexual consent.
Applying this principle, the Court noted that the appellant had married another woman in 1997, yet continued to assure the prosecutrix of marriage intentions. The defense could not present any justification for the appellant’s failure to marry the woman post-promise.
“Despite being married, the appellant lured the victim with marriage promises. His concealment of his marriage status supports that it was a false marriage promise, not intended to be fulfilled,” the Court declared.
More Read
Partial Allowance of Appeal
While the High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction and his seven-year sentence for rape, it set aside his conviction under Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage without consent), citing a lack of medical or documentary evidence. The Court noted that the prosecutrix’s claims of medical treatment were unsupported by evidence.
The appellant was instructed to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the remainder of his sentence. [Read Judgment]
