Sect. 376 IPC - A breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as false promises - SC

 Supreme Court observed in the recent judgement (NAIM AHMED VS STATE NCT D.D 30/01/2023) that Prosecutions for a breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as false promises and therefore cannot be punished under Section 376 IPC. Each case will depend on the facts proved before the court.

FACTS - A complaint lodged by a woman (prosecutrix) claiming that the accused lured her into an illicit sexual relationship by making false promises of marriage and hiding his married status. The complaint was registered as an FIR and after examining 11 witnesses, the Sessions Court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court reduced the sentence to 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and confirmed the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the prosecutrix.

ARGUED - Aggrieved accused approached Supreme Court and contended that the conviction was based on an improper evaluation of the evidence and that the prosecutrix had consented to the sexual relationship. Further contended that the complaint was filed with the intent to falsely accuse the accused and extort money from him, and that the accused should not be convicted for rape because the elements of the crime as defined in Clause-Secondly of Section 375 of the IPC read with Section 90 are not met.

Supreme Court observed that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the court may raise a legal presumption as to the absence of consent in certain rape cases based on Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. Consent is not valid if given under fear of injury or misconception of fact, as described in Section 90 of IPC. Section 375 of IPC describes seven circumstances in which rape may occur, even with the consent of the prosecutrix.

The application of the law and judicial decisions depend on the evidence and circumstances in each individual case. The decisions and laws provided by the court serve as guidelines for the judicial process. The courts below were wrong in holding the appellant guilty of the offense under Section 376 IPC. The facts that have emerged from the examination of the record are:

The prosecutrix was a married woman with three children.

The accused was living in a rented property in front of the prosecutrix's house.

The prosecutrix and the accused started having a sexual relationship.

The prosecutrix gave birth to a male child from the accused in 2011.

The prosecutrix found out that the accused was married with children in 2012 but continued to live with him.

The prosecutrix and her husband divorced by mutual consent in 2014.

The prosecutrix lodged a complaint in 2015, claiming that she consented to the sexual relationship under the misconception of the accused's false promise to marry her.

The argument raised by the respondents is that the prosecutrix's consent was not valid due to the accused's false promise to marry her. There is a difference between false promise and breach of promise. A false promise means the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix from the beginning and deceived her, while a breach of promise means the accused may have sincerely promised to marry but couldn't fulfill it due to unforeseen circumstances.

Prosecutions for a breach of promise to marry cannot be treated as false promises and therefore cannot be punished under Section 376 IPC. Each case will depend on the facts proved before the court.

Supreme Court held that the appellant-accused not guilty of the offense under Section 376 IPC after closely examining the evidence and the facts in the case. The prosecution argued that the consent was given under the misconception of fact as the accused had given a false promise to marry, however, the court found that the prosecutrix was a mature and intelligent married woman and her conduct during the relationship with the accused suggested that she had willingly entered into the relationship. The court acquitted the accused and stated that the direction for payment of compensation shall remain unchanged as the appellant had accepted responsibility for the child.

Depositions of witnesses in trial courts must be recorded in their language or in the language of the court, as per Section 277 of the Cr.P.C. Evidence must be recorded in the language of the witness or translated into the language of the court as soon as practicable. If the evidence is given in English and not translated, the court may dispense with the translation. Evidence must be recorded in the language of the witness or in the language of the court for proper appreciation of the text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of the witness. The original deposition of the witness must be considered when questions arise about the testimony. It is directed that all courts comply with the provisions of Section 277 of Cr.P.C. when recording the evidence of witnesses.

NAIM AHAMED VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)