Hiding existing marriage to induce widow into sex on promise of marriage is rape: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that when a man conceals the fact that he is already married and promises to marry a widow and induces her into a sexual relationship, her consent stands vitiated by misconception of fact and the act amounts to rape [Ramesh Sahu v. State of Jharkhand].

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that the accused’s concealment of his existing marriage demonstrated that he never intended to marry the woman and had made the promise only to satisfy his sexual desires.

“He has also concealed the factum of his being already married person clearly indicates that from the very inception, he had intention to deceive the prosecutrix (victim) and take undue advantage of sexual lust,” the Court observed.

The case arose from an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction by a Gumla trial court.

According to the prosecution, the woman had become a widow within two years of her marriage after her husband died of tuberculosis. She thereafter began living at her parental home.

She alleged that in December 1999, the appellant raped her in a forest after threatening to kill her if she resisted. Thereafter, he assured both her and her parents that he would marry her, bear her expenses and keep her with him. Relying on this assurance, she entered into a sexual relationship with him and the two lived together for several years.

The woman further alleged that she became pregnant twice during the relationship and that the appellant got both pregnancies terminated. She eventually lodged an FIR in January 2004 after the accused repeatedly postponed the marriage before finally refusing to marry her.

Before the High Court, the man argued that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR had been filed only after their relationship deteriorated. He also contended that there had merely been a breach of a promise to marry and not a false promise made from the outset.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions distinguishing a false promise of marriage from a mere breach of promise.

The Court explained that consent is vitiated only where the promise to marry was false from the very beginning and was made solely to obtain sexual consent.

Applying that principle to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the man had concealed that he had already gotten married to another woman in 1997 and he continued to assure the prosecutrix that he would marry her.

It also noted that the defence had failed to show any circumstance that prevented him from marrying the woman after making the promise.

“In spite of being a married person, the appellant seduced the victim to solemnize marriage with her… He has also concealed the factum of his being already married… Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any breach of promise of marriage… rather it was false promise of marriage which was never intended to be fulfilled,” the Court held.

The Court also rejected the argument that the delay of about four years in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution case. The delay stood sufficiently explained in the peculiar facts of the case, the Court said.

However, the High Court found no medical or documentary evidence to support the allegation that the appellant had caused the woman’s miscarriages without her consent. It noted that although the prosecutrix claimed to have been treated by a doctor, neither the doctor nor any medical records had been produced during trial.

Hence, the Court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the appellant’s conviction and seven-year sentence for rape while setting aside his conviction under Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage without consent).

It directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remainder of his sentence.

[Read Judgment]