POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme 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