The Final Order was passed by Special Judge Smt. Jaya Prabhu. The accused was represented by Adv. Manumon A., while the State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Sunitha K. A.
The Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur, presided over by Special Judge Smt. Jaya Prabhu, has acquitted an accused in a promise to marry rape case after holding that the prosecution failed to prove offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment was delivered on April 24, 2025 in Sessions Case No.1275/2024, arising from Crime No.43/2024 of Ollur Police Station. The case was titled State of Kerala v. X.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and the victim were classmates at Vaidyaratnam Ayurveda College, Thaikkattussery.
It claimed that the accused had sexual relations with the victim on the assurance of marriage and later refused to marry her. The prosecution also alleged repeated sexual assault and use of obscene language over the phone.
Trial Before Thrissur Fast Track Special Court
The police filed the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. The matter was later committed to the Sessions Court and transferred to the Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur for trial.
The Court framed charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 294(b) IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and marked Exhibits P1 to P37. The accused was then questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC. He denied the incriminating circumstances.
Also Read: Mizo Chiefs Land Rights: SC Rejects Plea
Court Examines Consent In Promise To Marry Rape Case
While considering the rape charge, the Court examined whether the prosecution had proved that the victim’s consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising from a false promise to marry.
For this issue, the Court referred to several decisions, including Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88, Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar (2007) 7 SCC 413, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 327, Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 1405, and Ranjith v. State of Kerala, 2022 (1) KHC 195.
The Court noted that these rulings distinguish a mere breach of promise from a false promise made at the outset without any intention to marry. The Court found that the material on record indicated a consensual relationship between the parties.
It also noted the admitted relationship between them and the fact that marriage talks had later taken place between the families. In that backdrop, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had no intention to marry the victim from the beginning.
The Court further held that the evidence did not show that the victim’s consent was obtained through misconception of fact, threat, or coercion.
Section 294(b) IPC Charge Also Not Proved
The Court separately considered the allegation under Section 294(b) IPC relating to obscene language allegedly used over the phone.
It held that apart from the victim’s testimony, no independent material had been produced to substantiate that allegation. The Court therefore found that this charge was also not established.
Final Order Of The Court
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, the Court acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) CrPC of offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 294(b) IPC.
The Court also cancelled the bail bond and directed that the accused be set at liberty forthwith.
Counsels: Adv. Manumon A., for the accused, while the State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Sunitha K. A.
Case: State of Kerala v. X, Sessions Case No.1275/2024
Also Read: Kejriwal Liquor Policy Case Transfer Plea: SC Move
