Read Time: 07 minutes

On Wednesday, the Kerala High Court observed that a vague statement would not be a substitute for the statutory mandate contained under Indian Penal Code, while deciding on plea by a man convicted of rape by a lower court based on the statement of a woman that the “accused hugged and impregnated” her without consent.

A single judge bench of Justice Kausar Edapaggath was considering a case which was registered in 2009 and the accused was convicted by a lower court on the basis of the testimony of the victim and her mother.

While setting aside the lower courts order and freeing the man the bench noted that,

“Such a vague statement would not be a substitute for the statutory mandate as contained in the Explanation to S. 375. Offence of rape is constituted only if the ingredients under S.375 are made out. Unless the victim states in her evidence about the penetrative non-consensual sexual act by the accused on her, the offence of rape cannot be said to be made out.”

As per the prosecution, the accused had developed physical relation with the woman and impregnated her on the pretext of a false marriage promise.

Subsequently, the police registered a crime against the accused on the basis of the first information statement given by the victim, three months after the alleged incident occurred.

The conviction by the lower courts was based mainly on the oral testimonies of the victim and her mother.

Subsequently the accused approached the High Court by way of the instant revision petition. It was argued on his behalf that there was no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the accused had committed rape on the victim as alleged by the prosecution.

To this the counsel who represented the man contended that, “no forceful intercourse was complained by the petitioner and both (victim and mother) withdrew from the marriage proposal after the accused failed to return a gold chain borrowed by him from the victim for pledging.”

According to the prosecution, the accused was seducing the victim and he withdrew from the marriage proposal unilaterally after satisfying his sexual lust on the fateful day.

The Bench noted that in the victim’s statement there was no mention of intercourse or that the victim gave birth to a child as alleged in the petition.

The Bench further noted that, “if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman, the prosecution must give evidence that the accused had no intention to marry the victim from the very inception, to attract the offence of rape.”

Going by the records, statements and factual matrix of the case, the Bench suggested that all these do not remotely suggested that intercourse was non-consensual.

“There must be proof of penetration and only the victim can tell about this. But after going through her statement, such a fact is not revealed. She has not stated anything relating to penile penetration or such attempt. She only stated that the accused hugged and impregnated her,” the Bench observed.

Lastly, the bench found that the promise of marriage was given after the alleged sexual act and not at the initial stage.

[Case Title - Ranjith v. State of Kerala]