Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim A vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28665
1 CRA-725-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 725 of 2023
VICTIM A
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Kripal Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This Criminal Appeal is filed by the victim being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 10/2022 whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant Shri Pramod Silawat of the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 Part-II of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ram Kripal Mishra submits that the appellant is a victim of sexual offence. She was made to engage in sexual act on the basis of a false promise of marriage and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot escape the rigors of law for making a false promise of marriage and exploiting the prosecutrix.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:48:54NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28665 2 CRA-725-2023
3. Shri Manasmani Verma, learned Government Advocate in his turn supports impugned judgment.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, it is evident that prosecutrix herself stated in her examination in chief that her age at the time of the incident was 20 years. Incident took place a year back. It is stated in the name of marriage, respondent No.2 had called her to his house at Village Imjhari and violated her privacy. Thereafter, when she asked him to marry her, then he threatened her with life. Thereafter, in para-2, prosecutrix has stated that accused was violating her privacy on an interval of 08 to 15 days. This sequence continued for a year. Thereafter, she had narrated her story to her parents, after being raped on 20 occasions. Her medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, telephone of the accused was switched off when she lodged report.
5. Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) admitted the age of the prosecutrix to be 20 years at the time of the incident. She stated that prosecutrix had informed her that for last 04 years, accused was violating her privacy in the name of marriage.
6. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) has stated on the same lines as PW-2 mother of the prosecutrix. Similar statements have been given by PW- 4 maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and PW-5 brother of the prosecutrix.
7. Dr. Aditi Dhurve (PW-8) stated that, there were no internal or external injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix. She had prepared a vaginal slide and had given to the police. She stated that, no definite opinion can be given about intercourse in the immediate past. FSL report is available Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:48:54 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28665 3 CRA-725-2023 on record as Ex.C-1. On the slide as well as pubic hair slide, no sperms were found.
8. Law in regard to consent is well settled as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & another (2019)9 SCC 608, wherein it is held that individuals who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative action (or inaction) as well as various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action. It is further held that where promise to marry is false and intention of maker at the time of making promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates woman's "consent". On the other hand a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. Specifically in the context of promise to marry.
9. When evidence of the prosecutrix is taken into consideration in the aforesaid context then prosecutrix admitted that she entered into physical relationship with the accused on 20 occasion. She admitted that, after first physical relationship she had asked the accused to marry her. Accused had refused to marry her. That means that there was no false promise to marry. Even otherwise, prosecutrix had admitted that, there is a Government School next to her house and maternal uncle reside on the other side of her house. Her maternal uncle, aunt and their children are residing in her neighborhood. In her house, her parents are residing with her and similarly in accused's house his parents are residing. She has admitted in para 5 that after first violation of privacy, she did not report the matter to police because she was Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 07-07-2025 17:48:54 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28665 4 CRA-725-2023 in love with the accused and vice versa. She ha also admitted in para-6 of her cross-examination, that she had gone to meet accused at 02:00 a.m.. She also admitted that, they had cordial talk in a washroom for about 01 hours.
10. Thus, it is evident that, prosecutrix was never put to deception in the name of marriage. At best, it can be a case of breach of promise and therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) when prosecutrix has specifically admitted that because of love relationship with the appellant, she was establishing physical relationship and she also admitted that, if the accused married her she would not had made a report, we are of the opinion that in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and also in the light of Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & another 2022 SCC OnLine 2110. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415 has held that where two views are possible on evidence on record one taken by trial Court in favour of accused should not be disturbed by Appellate Court. Same is the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 742, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference in appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
11. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 07-07-2025
17:48:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28665
5 CRA-725-2023
AR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMITABH
RANJAN
Signing time: 07-07-2025
17:48:54