Kerala High Court Upholds Rejection of Discharge Plea: Rules That Accused Must Face Trial for Repeated Rape Under False Promise of Marriage and Coercion

Court’s Decision:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the accused’s revision petition, affirming the Special Court’s decision to deny the discharge application. The Court ruled that:

1. There was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial for offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape by a person in a relationship of authority) and 376(2)(f) (rape under coercion) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The accused’s defense of a consensual relationship was deemed premature for consideration at the discharge stage.

The Court made it clear that the trial court was justified in framing charges and proceeding with the case.

Facts:

1. Prosecution Allegations: The complainant alleged that the accused, a distant relative, repeatedly coerced her into sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage. The relationship began in December 2018 and continued until June 2019.
2. Abuse of Trust: The complainant stated that the accused persuaded her to send explicit photographs and threatened her with suicide if she disclosed their relationship.
3. Breaking of Promise: The complainant discovered that the accused was engaged to another woman, leading to her attempted suicide and subsequent filing of a complaint with the police.
4. Legal Action: The accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) IPC. He sought discharge, claiming the relationship was consensual, citing the complainant’s earlier statements before a youth commission.

Issues:

1. Does the evidence establish a prima facie case of rape under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) IPC?
2. Can the accused introduce additional evidence at the discharge stage to refute the allegations?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The accused claimed that the complainant had admitted to a consensual relationship in a prior complaint to the Yuvajana Commission (Youth Commission).
2. He argued that there was no evidence of coercion or lack of consent, and therefore, the charges under Section 376 IPC were unsustainable.
3. He requested discharge on the basis that the materials submitted by the prosecution did not disclose a prima facie case of rape.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The prosecution argued that the complainant’s consent was vitiated by the accused’s false promise of marriage, making the sexual acts non-consensual as per Section 90 IPC.
2. It contended that at the discharge stage, the court must accept the prosecution’s evidence as true and should not consider evidence introduced by the accused.
3. The prosecution emphasized that the materials submitted provided sufficient grounds to frame charges and proceed with trial.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court examined the legal framework governing discharge applications under Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):

1. Prima Facie Evidence: At the discharge stage, the Court must determine whether the prosecution’s evidence discloses sufficient grounds to proceed. The test is whether there is strong suspicion against the accused, not whether the evidence would lead to conviction.
2. Vitiated Consent: Under Section 90 IPC, consent obtained through deception or false promises (such as a promise of marriage) is invalid. The Court noted that such matters are best assessed during the trial.
3. Limited Scope of Discharge: The accused cannot introduce external evidence at the discharge stage. Only materials submitted by the prosecution are relevant at this stage.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Sheoroj Singh Ahlawat v. State of UP (2013):
   • The Court held that the sufficiency of evidence should not be evaluated during framing of charges.
   • The trial court must presume that prosecution materials are true when framing charges.
2. Sandeep G v. State of Kerala (2024):
   • This case emphasized that discharge should only be granted if the prosecution’s evidence does not establish a prima facie case. The trial court must carefully evaluate the prosecution materials without delving into the accused’s defense.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The Court noted that the complainant’s statement alleged repeated sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, fulfilling the elements of Section 376 IPC.
2. The accused’s reliance on the complainant’s earlier statements to the Youth Commission was dismissed because such materials, not part of the prosecution’s case, cannot be considered at the discharge stage.
3. The Court emphasized that consent obtained through deception is invalid under Section 90 IPC, making the allegations serious enough to proceed to trial.
4. It was deemed too early to decide on the accused’s claim of consensual sexual relations. The trial is the appropriate stage to assess the credibility of such claims.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the Special Court’s decision to reject the discharge application, ruling that the case warranted a full trial. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case.

Implications:

1. This judgment reaffirms the principle that courts must focus solely on prosecution materials at the discharge stage and not allow the accused to present extraneous evidence.
2. It underscores the importance of evaluating allegations of false promises of marriage under Section 90 IPC, ensuring robust legal protections for victims of sexual exploitation.
3. The decision strengthens jurisprudence on framing charges, emphasizing the threshold of “prima facie” evidence rather than final proof of guilt.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case: “SVAMAAN” vs. “SAMMAAN” – Use of “SAMMAAN” Found to Infringe Trademark “SVAMAAN” Due to Strong Likelihood of Consumer Confusion