‘ACQUITTAL FROM 376’ SUPREME COURT’S LATEST LEADING CASE LAWS CASE NOTES- FACTS- FINDINGS OF APEX COURT JUDGES & CITATIONS

JAYPRAKASH BANSILAL SOMANI

Copyright © Jayprakash Bansilal Somani All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-1-68487-129-2 This book has been published with all efforts taken to make the material errorfree after the consent of the author. However, the author and the publisher do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. While every effort has been made to avoid any mistake or omission, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that neither the author nor the publishers or printers would be liable in any manner to any person by reason of any mistake or omission in this publication or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this work. For any defect in printing or binding the publishers will be liable only to replace the defective copy by another copy of this work then available.

Dedic Dedicaated To All the P Pas astt & P Prresent Judg Judges es ooff the Supr Supreme eme C Court ourt ooff India. Salut Salutee ttoo their wisdom. Salut Salutee ttoo their int interpr erpreetation ooff LLaaw. Salut Salutee ttoo their el elabor aboraativ tivee judg judgement ement writing.

Contents Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

1. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State Of Maharashtra And

1

Ors., 2019 2. Deepak Gulati Vs. State Of Haryana, 2013

4

3. Uday Vs. State Of Karnataka, 2003

7

4. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State Of Maharashtra And

11

Ors., 2018 5. Deelip Singh Vs. State Of Bihar, 2004

15

6. Prashant Bharti Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi, 2013

18

7. Patan Jamal Vali Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2021

21

8. Anokhilal Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2019

23

9. Yogesh And Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana, 2021

26

10. Ankush Maruti Shinde And Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2019 29 11. State Of H.p. Vs. Suresh Kumar, 2008

35

12. State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mango Ram, 2000

38

13. The State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manga Singh, 2018

41

14. Premiya Vs. State Of Rajasthan, 2008

44

15. Anjan Kumar Sarma And Ors. Vs. State Of Assam, 2017

47

16. State Of A.p. Vs. P. Narasimha And Ors., 1994

52

17. Sham Singh Vs. The State Of Haryana, 2018

55

18. Pardeep Kumar Vs. Union Administration, Chandigarh, 2006

58

19. Radhu Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2007

64

20. Aman Kumar And Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana, 2004

67

Videos & Tv Shows On Law & Exim

71

List Of Books

77

•v•

Preface Dear Learned Advocates of the Trial Courts, Session Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court & Individuals, I am very delighted to provide you a book on ‘Acquittal From 376’Supreme Court of India’s Latest Leading Case Laws’. In this book you will get... 1.Name of the Case i. e. Cause title 2.Relevant Sections discussed in the case 3.Hon'ble Judges/Coram of the case 4.Number of PDF Pages in Original Judgement of the case 5.All available Citations of the case 6.Case Note with appeal allowed/ dismissed or disposed off 7.Facts of the case 8.Hon’ble Apex Court’s findings, while dismissing/allowing or disposing the appeal 9.Ratio Decidendi if any. My special thanks to Manupatra, because of their web portal I can compile this book in well manner. I am also thankful to Notion Press to support me to publish & market this book throughout the Country. Thanks to my Juniors, Advocate Colleagues & Insolvency Professional Colleagues to support me in this venture. Miss Devpriya Shah has helped me a lot to compile this book. I hope this book will add some value addition in the wealth of your legal knowledge. Your positive feedbacks will boost me to compile/ write further books & negative feedbacks will improve my skills. Kindly send your valuable feedbacks by email. Thanks with Regards, Jayprakash B. Somani Advocate, Supreme Court of India Email: [email protected] Web Site:www.jayprakashsomani.com Call:8384051134, 9322188701

• vii •

Acknowledgements Printed & Published by Notion Press No. 8, 3rdCross Street, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600004

Managed by Jayprakash Somani Advocates & Solicitors Law Firm for Supreme Court of India Delhi Office 257 C, Pocket 1, Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi 110091. Call 8384051134, 9322188701, 8459194576, 01141051516 Supreme Court Chamber rd 312, 3 Floor, M. C. Setalvad Block, In front of ‘D’ Gate, Bhagwan Das Road, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001 Contact: 8459194576, 9811011747 www.jayprakashsomani.com

Books are available online at 1. Notion Press:https://notionpress.com/author/jayprakash_somani 2. Amazon:https://www.amazon.in/s?k=jayprakash+somani 3. Flipkart:https://www.flipkart.com/search?q=Jayprakash%20Somani

• ix •

CHAPTER ONE

PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., 2019 Relevant Section: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 375; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ. Equivalent Citation: 2020(206)AIC44, AIR2019SC4010, 2020 (2) ALD(Crl.) 400 (SC), 2020 (110) ACC 924, 2019ALLMR(Cri)3949, 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 216 (A.P.), 2019(5)BLJ306, 2019(4)Crimes487(SC), 2019(4)J.L.J.R.48, 2019(4)JKJ233[SC], 2020-2-LW(Crl)685, 2019(4)PLJR71, 2019(4)RCR(Criminal)135, 2019(11)SCALE209, (2019)9SCC608, 2020 (2) SCJ 350, 2019(3)UC1899, MANU/SC/1142/2019 Number of Pages in the Original Judgment: 10 Case Note: Criminal - Promise to marry - Quashing of FIR - Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(u), (w) and 3(2)(vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 - First Information Report (FIR) registered against Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of Code and Sections 3(1)(u), (w) and 3(2)(vii) of Act - Appellant moved High Court to quash FIR - High Court rejected application filed by Appellant for quashing •1•

‘ACQUITTAL FROM 376’ SUPREME COURT’S LATEST LEADING CASE LAWS

of FIR - Hence, present appeal - Whether breach of promise to marry constitute false promise and impugned FIR liable to be quashed. Ratio Decidendi: A breach of a promise to marry cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. Brief facts: A First Information Report registered against Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(u), (w) and 3(2)(vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015). Appellant moved the High Court to quash FIR. The High Court rejected application filed by Appellant for quashing of FIR. Held, while allowing the appeal: (i) Where the promise to marry was false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there was a misconception of fact that vitiates the woman’s consent. On the other hand, a breach of a promise could not be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. [16] (ii) The allegations in the FIR did not on their face indicate that the promise by the Appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There was no allegation in the FIR that when the Appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The Appellant’s failure to fulfil his promise made could not be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the Appellant and that she and the Appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the Appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the Appellant’s promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant’s statements were accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 of Code had occurred.

•2•

JAYPRAKASH BANSILAL SOMANI

(iii) With respect to the offences under the SC/ST Act, without entering into a detailed analysis of the content of the WhatsApp messages sent by the Appellant and the words alleged to had been spoken, it is apparent that none of the offences were made out. The messages were not in public view, no assault occurred, nor was the Appellant in such a position so as to dominate the will of the complainant. Therefore, even if the allegations set out by the complainant with respect to the WhatsApp messages and words uttered were accepted on their face, no offence was made out under SC/ST Act (as it then stood). The allegations on the face of the FIR did not hence establish the commission of the offences alleged. Without entering into a detailed analysis of the content of the WhatsApp messages sent by the Appellant and the words alleged to have been spoken, it is apparent that none of the offences set out above are made out. The messages were not in public view, no assault occurred, nor was the Appellant in such a position so as to dominate the will of the complainant. Therefore, even if the allegations set out by the complainant with respect to the WhatsApp messages and words uttered are accepted on their face, no offence is made out under SC/ST Act (as it then stood). The allegations on the face of the FIR do not hence establish the commission of the offences alleged. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 7 February 2019. The FIR dated 17 May 2016 is quashed.

•3•

CHAPTER TWO

DEEPAK GULATI VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 2013 Relevant sections: Section 365, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 90 and 114A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Hon'ble Judges/Coram: B.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra, JJ. Equivalent Citation: 2013(3)ACR2502, 2013(2)ACR2308, 2013VI AD (S.C.) 233, 2013(127)AIC122, AIR2013SC2987, AIR2013SC2071, 2014(1)AJR265, 2013(2)ALD(Cri)492, 2013 (82) ACC 345, 2013(3)ALT(Cri)339, 2013(3)BLJ71, II(2013)CCR482(SC), 2013CriLJ2990, 2013(2)Crimes311(SC), 2013(3)CTC567, 2014(4)J.L.J.R.220, 2013(4)JCC2680, JT2013(9)SC105, 2013(2)KLJ810, 2013(2)KLT762, 2014(3)MPHT82, 2013(1)N.C.C.834, 2013(II)OLR684, 2014(4)PLJR473, 2013(3)RCR(Criminal)96, 2013(7)SCALE383, (2013)7SCC675, MANU/ SC/0546/2013 Number of Pages in the Original Judgment: 8 Case Note: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 365, 376 and 90 - Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114A--Kidnapping and rape--Conviction and sentence-Sustainability--Prosecutrix left her home voluntarily of her own free-will to get married to appellant--Prosecutrix was 19 years of age at relevant time-Hence, capable of understanding complications and issues surrounding her marriage to appellant--She had inclination towards appellant and had willingly gone with him to get married--Physical relationship between parties clearly developed with consent of prosecutrix--Not tantamount to committing rape--Prosecutrix willingly gone with him to get married fully •4•

JAYPRAKASH BANSILAL SOMANI

established from evidence on record--Allegation of "false promise of marriage" raised by prosecutrix--Of no consequence--Facts of instance case do not warrant that provisions of Section 114A of Evidence Act be pressed into service--Section 90 of I.P.C. cannot be called into aid in such situation-Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt--Conviction and sentence awarded by courts below--Set aside. Ratio Decidendi: "An accused can be convicted only if Court reaches a conclusion that intention of Accused is mala fide, and that he has clandestine motives." Brief facts: The undisputed facts of the case are as under: I. The prosecutrix was 19 years of age at the time of the said incident. II. She had inclination towards the appellant, and had willingly gone with him to Kurukshetra to get married. III. The appellant had been giving her assurance of the fact that he would get married to her. IV. The physical relationship between the parties had clearly developed with the consent of the prosecutrix, as there was neither a case of any resistance, nor had she raised any complaint anywhere at any time despite the fact that she had been living with the appellant for several days, and had travelled with him from one place to another. V. Even after leaving the hostel of Kurukshetra University, she agreed and proceeded to go with the appellant to Ambala, to get married to him there. The sole question involved herein is whether her consent had been obtained on the false promise of marriage. If the prosecutrix was in fact going to Ambala to marry the appellant, as stands fully established from the evidence on record, the Supreme Court fail to understand on what basis the allegation of "false promise of marriage" has been raised by the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court also fail to comprehend the circumstances in which a charge of deceit/rape can be levelled against the appellant, in light of the afore-mentioned fact situation. Indian Penal Code, 1860--Section 376--Rape--Rape and consensual sex-Distinction between--Accused can be convicted for rape only if the Court reaches a conclusion that intention of accused was mala fide, and he had clandestine motives. Held while allowing the petition infavour of accused:

•5•