A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, accused of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC, emphasizing the absence of credible evidence. The Court noted contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence, including alleged photographs, jewelry, and financial transfers. The relationship was characterized as consensual, marred by an eventual breakdown. The Supreme Court held that compelling the appellant to face trial based on insufficient evidence constituted an abuse of judicial process. This judgment further clarified the nuances of consent under Section 375 IPC and the applicability of Section 90 IPC in cases involving allegations of sexual relations under a promise of marriage.

Keywords: Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Consent, Misconception of Fact, Rape, False Promise of Marriage.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date: 08 July 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vi) Author: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 8

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 376(2)(n), IPC (Rape)
• Section 506, IPC (Criminal Intimidation)
• Section 90, IPC (Consent under Misconception of Fact)
• Section 161, Cr.P.C.
• Section 164, Cr.P.C.
• Section 227, Cr.P.C. (Discharge)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from allegations by the prosecutrix that the appellant coerced her into a sexual relationship under the threat of sharing compromising photographs and a false promise of marriage. The FIR was registered two years after the alleged incidents, citing rape and intimidation. The appellant’s application for discharge under Section 227, Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Trial Court and upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court, focusing on the evidentiary weaknesses and contradictions, decided to quash the proceedings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant threatened to leak her private photographs, coercing her into accompanying him to Gwalior.
2. The appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the prosecutrix at a rented premise.
3. The relationship persisted for two years, during which the appellant allegedly obtained financial benefits and jewelry from the prosecutrix.
4. The appellant promised marriage but later refused, citing a demand of Rs. 15 lakhs as a precondition.
5. The prosecutrix filed an FIR two years after the alleged incidents.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the relationship between the prosecutrix and appellant was consensual or coerced.

ii. Whether the appellant’s alleged actions constituted rape under Section 375 IPC.

iii. Whether the evidence substantiated the claims of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, as evidenced by the two-year duration and the prosecutrix’s voluntary actions.

ii. The FIR was lodged belatedly, undermining the prosecutrix’s credibility.

iii. Contradictions between the prosecutrix’s statements under Section 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., further cast doubt on her claims.

iv. Key material evidence, such as photographs, jewelry, and financial documents, were neither seized nor produced.

v. Compelling the appellant to undergo trial based on insufficient evidence would violate principles of justice and judicial process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The prosecution argued that the appellant exploited the prosecutrix by threatening to release private photographs, forcing her into a sexual relationship.

ii. The prosecutrix’s consent was obtained under a “misconception of fact,” making it invalid under Section 90 IPC.

iii. Evidence from the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., supported a prima facie case for trial.

iv. At the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie view is required; the evidence suffices to proceed with trial.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that:

1. The relationship between the parties appeared consensual and sustained over two years.
2. Contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements weakened the prosecution’s case.
3. The absence of corroborative material evidence rendered the allegations unsustainable.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that prosecution in such cases without sufficient evidence could lead to an abuse of judicial processes, affecting both the accused and the credibility of genuine cases.

c. GUIDELINES

• Mere allegations of rape or intimidation should not suffice for trial without substantive evidence.
• Courts must scrutinize evidentiary support for claims of consent obtained under fear or misconception.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the importance of evidentiary scrutiny in criminal trials, particularly in sensitive cases involving allegations of sexual assault. The Court’s emphasis on the absence of corroborative evidence and contradictions in statements reaffirms the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 18 SCC 191]
• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608]

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Section 375, IPC
• Section 376(2)(n), IPC
• Section 506, IPC
• Section 90, IPC
• Section 161, Cr.P.C.
• Section 164, Cr.P.C.
• Section 227, Cr.P.C.