Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

No reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating: High Court Quashes Rape Charges in Case of Marital Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the rape charges against the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Soni, stemming from a complex marital dispute. The bench, led by Hon'ble Justice Vishal Dhagat, emphasized the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner. This decision underscores the necessity for clear and consistent testimonies in cases involving allegations of sexual assault.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix at the Govindpura Police Station in Bhopal, where she accused Sandeep Kumar Soni of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage, and subsequent threats to her life. The complaint led to charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix and petitioner were married on October 27, 2021, in Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhopal. The petitioner filed for nullification of the marriage shortly thereafter, claiming that the relationship was coerced and that the prosecutrix had affiliations with other individuals.

Justice Dhagat meticulously examined the prosecutrix's statements, finding significant discrepancies. "From her statement, it is clear that she did not surrender to petitioner for making sexual intercourse on believing false promise of marriage to be true," the judge noted. The prosecutrix alleged repeated forceful rapes but failed to lodge any FIRs promptly, which cast doubts on her narrative's credibility.

The court observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix had a longstanding history, spanning over five years. During this period, no formal complaints of rape were filed, which the court found inconsistent with the prosecutrix's allegations of continuous sexual assault under duress. "Despite forceful rape being committed by the petitioner on her repeatedly for long time, she did not lodge FIR against petitioner on the contrary she also married the petitioner," the judgment highlighted.

The legal reasoning centered around Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, provided she is not under 18 years of age, does not constitute rape. The court found that the alleged incidents of rape occurred before the formalization of marriage and thus did not fall under the purview of this exception. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecutrix's actions did not align with someone misled by a false promise of marriage, but rather indicated consensual actions within a troubled relationship.

Justice Vishal Dhagat remarked, "No reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating before the police station regarding commission of rape on her." This statement encapsulated the court's skepticism towards the prosecutrix's claims and underscored the necessity for coherent and plausible evidence in such cases.

The High Court's decision to quash the charges against Sandeep Kumar Soni marks a significant moment in the judicial handling of cases involving complex interpersonal relationships and allegations of sexual assault. By highlighting the inconsistencies and lack of timely legal actions by the prosecutrix, the court has reinforced the importance of credible evidence in upholding justice. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, particularly those involving marital disputes and allegations of false promises of marriage.

 

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024

SANDEEP KUMAR SONI  VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH and VICTIM A .

Latest Legal News