Prayagraj: Observing that a long-standing consensual physical relationship between two adults cannot be termed rape merely because a promise of marriage was not fulfilled, particularly when the dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature, the Allahabad high court has allowed two connected criminal appeals and discharged the accused of charges under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.Justice Santosh Rai set aside the orders of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, who had rejected the discharge application of the accused, Saurabh Pal Singh, and framed charges against him.An FIR was lodged in Oct 2020 by the complainant, a Scheduled Caste woman pursuing a PhD at the Allahabad University. She alleged that the accused developed a close relationship with her, promised to marry her and, on that assurance, established physical relations with her over a prolonged period.She further alleged that the accused took her ATM card, scholarship money, jewellery and Rs 15 lakh on the pretext of starting a restaurant business. According to the FIR, after establishing the business, he refused to marry her, stopped communicating with her, and his wife and family members threatened her and allegedly abused her with caste-related slurs.The complainant also alleged that although the accused gave her two cheques of Rs 5 lakh each, both were dishonoured. After a chargesheet was filed, the accused moved a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the trial court. The application was rejected, following which he approached the high court, contending that the material on record, even if accepted in its entirety, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.After examining the FIR, the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and other documentary evidence, the high court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.The court noted that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate, the complainant admitted there was no romantic relationship between her and the accused and that they had established physical relations because they were friends or acquaintances. It also observed that her earlier statement under Section 161 CrPC indicated that the physical relationship had existed since 2014.Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (2013), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (2019) and Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2006), the court reiterated that to sustain a charge of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was false from the very beginning and made in bad faith.“Absent any specific averment of inducement by a false promise made in bad faith from the outset, and absent any specific date, time or circumstance of the alleged act of rape in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the essential ingredients of Section 376 IPC are not made out even on a prima facie appraisal of the material,” the court observed.The court also held that an offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution must establish that the alleged offence was committed specifically on account of the victim’s caste identity. The court found no material indicating any caste-based intent or nexus.Holding that the trial court had acted mechanically and without proper application of judicial mind while rejecting the discharge application, the high court, in its July 6 judgment, observed that the material collected during the investigation fell far short of disclosing a prima facie case.“The record, on the contrary, indicates that the dispute is predominantly civil and financial in nature and that the allegations of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage are not prima facie borne out from the material available,” the court observed while allowing the appeals filed by the accused.
