Recent Supreme Court Reportable case summary: Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023:Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code)

Shiv Pratap Singh Rana

v.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023)

Facts:

1. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 06.09.2018 at Vishwavidhyalaya Police Station, District Gwalior, alleging that in 2016, the appellant, Shiv Pratap Singh Rana, threatened to upload her photographs on WhatsApp if she didn’t accompany him to Gwalior. The FIR was registered as Crime No. 401 of 2018 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecutrix claimed that upon reaching Gwalior, the appellant forcefully committed a wrongful act on her in a rented premises at Anupam Nagar and made her sign an affidavit stating she would live with him for life. She alleged that this occurred after the appellant had taken her photographs while she was changing clothes after bathing at a temple near Kitore village.

3. According to the prosecutrix, the appellant initially promised to marry her after his brother’s marriage but later demanded Rs. 15 lakhs as dowry. She claimed to have given the appellant money and jewelry totaling Rs. 90,000 on various occasions, including a cheque of Rs. 10,000 from her mother’s account on 16.06.2017 and her sister’s mangalsutra pendant which he allegedly mortgaged for Rs. 8,000.

4. The prosecutrix stated that she had attended the appellant’s coaching center in Dabra during 2015-2016 along with her brother Mukul. The appellant was a friend of her younger brother and a distant relative of her brother-in-law. She claimed she got a job as a receptionist on the appellant’s recommendation.

5. Two stamp papers were allegedly obtained by the appellant – one on 28.09.2016 stating he would support the prosecutrix throughout her life, and another on 07.07.2017 expressing his desire to marry her.

6. The prosecutrix’s family members allegedly met the appellant’s family for marriage talks in June 2018 but were turned away. Community members reportedly urged the appellant and his family to return the jewelry and marry the prosecutrix, but they refused.

7. The appellant allegedly switched off his mobile phone and disappeared from Dabra after the marriage talks failed. The prosecutrix claimed the appellant’s brother threatened to kill her and implicate her brother in a false case if she complained to the police.

8. The FIR was lodged two years after the alleged incidents when the prosecutrix was about 24 years old. The parties had been in a relationship for almost two years before the FIR was lodged.

9. During the investigation, no photographs, mobile phone, jewelry, or other evidence was seized by the police to corroborate the prosecutrix’s claims.

10. The Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and rejected his discharge application. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision petition on 03.10.2019. The Supreme Court granted leave on 12.05.2023 and stayed the trial proceedings.

Law Points:

1. Section 375 IPC – Definition of rape: This section defines the offence of rape, including instances where consent is obtained by putting a person in fear of death or hurt, or when consent is given under a misconception of fact.

2. Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Rape committed repeatedly on the same woman: This provision deals with the specific offence of committing rape repeatedly on the same woman, carrying enhanced punishment.

3. Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation: This section defines and prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation, which includes threatening a person with injury to their person, reputation, or property.

4. Section 90 IPC – Consent given under fear or misconception: This section clarifies that consent given under fear of injury or misconception of fact is not valid consent as intended by the IPC.

5. Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Recording of statements: These sections deal with the examination of witnesses by police and recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate, respectively.

6. Section 227 CrPC – Discharge of accused: This provision allows for the discharge of an accused if the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

7. Section 397 CrPC – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: This section empowers the High Court or Sessions Court to call for records of proceedings to exercise its powers of revision.

8. Consent under Section 375 IPC: The law requires that consent for sexual acts must involve voluntary participation after exercising intelligence and choice.

9. Misconception of fact in the context of consent: The court must determine whether consent was obtained under a misconception of fact that vitiates the consent.

10. False promise of marriage vitiating consent: The law considers whether a false promise of marriage can vitiate consent for sexual relations.

11. Framing of charges – Prima facie view: The court must take a prima facie view based on available materials when deciding whether to frame charges.

12. Powers of revision court: The extent to which a revision court can interfere with an order framing charges.

13. Quashing of criminal proceedings: The grounds on which criminal proceedings can be quashed, including abuse of the process of court.

14. Delay in filing FIR in sexual offence cases: The legal implications of delay in filing an FIR in cases of sexual offences.

15. Evidentiary requirements in rape cases: The law regarding the type and quality of evidence required to prove charges of rape.

Arguments:

For the Appellant:

1. The relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was purely consensual, and there was no criminal element involved.
2. The significant delay of two years in filing the FIR indicates a false case and undermines the credibility of the allegations.
3. The lack of any seized evidence, such as photographs or the mobile phone, weakens the prosecution’s case substantially.
4. Contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC raise doubts about the veracity of her claims.
5. The appellant should not be subjected to the ignominy of a long trial based on weak and uncorroborated evidence.

For the Respondents:

1. There is sufficient prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant and conduct a full trial.
2. The appellant committed rape on the false promise of marriage, vitiating the consent given by the prosecutrix.
3. The consent obtained was under a misconception of fact, rendering it invalid as per Section 90 IPC.
4. The alleged blackmail using photographs constitutes a clear case of consent obtained under fear.
5. The repeated nature of the physical relationship indicates an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, warranting a full trial.

Cases Cited:

1. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191
Law points:

– Interpretation of consent under Section 90 IPC
– Consent requires voluntary participation after the exercise of intelligence
– The court must carefully study all relevant circumstances to ascertain consent

2. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
Law points:

– Consent under Section 375 IPC in the context of a false promise of marriage
– Two propositions to establish vitiation of consent by misconception of fact:
a) The promise of marriage must have been false, given in bad faith
b) The false promise must be of immediate relevance to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act

Judgment:

1. The Supreme Court held that the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant cannot be said to be against her will and without her consent, based on the available evidence and circumstances.

2. The Court found no case of rape or criminal intimidation made out on the available materials, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence to support the prosecutrix’s claims.

3. The relationship was deemed to appear consensual, which had likely soured, leading to the filing of the FIR after a significant delay of two years.

4. The Court opined that compelling the appellant to face trial would be an abuse of the court process, given the weak nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.

5. Significant weight was given to the fact that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the appellant on multiple occasions, including to Gwalior and the temple, which was inconsistent with her allegations of threat or coercion.

6. The Court noted that no alarm was raised by the prosecutrix at any point during their interactions, further undermining her claims of non-consensual acts.

7. Importance was placed on the fact that the relationship continued even after the alleged forceful act, suggesting a consensual nature of the relationship.

8. The Court considered that both families had met to discuss marriage, indicating a relationship acknowledged by both parties and their families.

9. Emphasis was placed on the two-year delay in filing the FIR, which the Court viewed as suggestive of a consensual relationship that had deteriorated.

10. The lack of seized evidence, such as photographs, mobile phone, or jewelry, was highlighted as a significant weakness in the prosecution’s case.

11. The Court observed that the prosecutrix, being a major at the time of the alleged incidents, was deemed to be conscious of the consequences of her actions.

12. Contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were noted as further weakening her credibility.

13. The Court concluded that the absence of key evidence made the possibility of conviction virtually impossible, rendering the case unfit even for trial.

14. Based on these findings, the Court set aside and quashed the orders of both the High Court and the Sessions Judge, effectively terminating the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

15. In its concluding remarks, the Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of consent in relationships that turn sour and the importance of corroborative evidence in cases alleging rape on the false promise of marriage.

This detailed synopsis provides a comprehensive overview of the case, including key facts, legal points, arguments, cited cases, and the court’s judgment, as requested.

Judgement : Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. S376 ,506 IPC