Case Title: NAIM AHAMED vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
In the tumultuous tides of love and hate relationships, reputations may be sullied, hearts shattered and bitter exchanges may entangle one in the court’s grasp. Tragically, seldom, if not rarely the beauty of love often gets distorted into the brutal manifestation of rape. The Apex Court in the recent landmark verdict of Naim Ahamed versus State (NCT of Delhi) opined that every breach of promise to marry is not ‘rape’.
Synopsis
The bone of contention raised in the case was that the prosecutrix, who was already a married woman, had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her, and therefore it was her case that such consent was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause- Secondly of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
Bench
A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi of the Supreme Court made observations while setting aside a sentence of 10 years awarded to one Naim Ahamed. The judgment was delivered by Bela M. Trivedi.
Dispute
This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2016. The High Court modified the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 67/2015. The High Court’s judgment and order affects the rights of the appellant-accused, and thus he is appealing the decision.
The Supreme Court held that it would be a folly to treat each promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
Brief Facts
In the case at hand, the prosecutrix was a married woman having three children who developed a liking for the accused who was staying in a tenanted premises situated in front of her house. Both started having a sexual relationship and the prosecutrix delivered a male child, fathered by the accused.
The prosecutrix went to the native place of the accused in 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children, but she still continued to live with the accused in separate premises. The prosecutrix and her husband took divorce by mutual consent in 2014 and thereafter prosecutrix permanently left her three children with her husband. Later on, she lodged a complaint alleging that she had consented for sexual relationship with the accused as the accused had promised her to marry and subsequently did not marry her.
The appellant (the accused) was found guilty for the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC. The Sessions Court sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant, modified the sentence and reduced the substantive sentence to 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The High Court also confirmed the direction with regard to the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the prosecutrix. The appellant has paid the amount as directed.
In this case, the accused denied the allegations leveled against him and tried to explain the circumstances. He claimed that the prosecutrix was aware that he was a married person having children, and that she had also met his wife at his house. He further stated that he was providing financial help to the prosecutrix regularly, and when he refused to fulfill her demand of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, she lodged a false case against him.
Summary of Issues (Points of Contention)
There is a distinction between giving a false promise made with no intention of fulfillment and a mere breach of promise. In the Naim Ahamed versus State (NCT of Delhi) case of a false promise, the accused never intended to marry the accuser and made a false promise with the sole purpose of satisfying their desires. Whereas, in the case of a breach of promise, it is possible that the accused made the promise in good faith but encountered unforeseen circumstances that prevented them from fulfilling it.
The top court pertinently noted that there is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused.
“In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise”, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi noted.
Observation of the Court
Court further held that, the prosecutrix who herself was married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the accused-appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with him.
“Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to”, the bench held in conclusion.
The Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant accused of the offence of rape under Section 376 of IPC and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts. The Cort also directed the appellant to pay compensation to the prosecutrix, which he had accepted and paid. The Court held that the prosecutrix was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions and that the accused was not guilty of rape.
Conclusion
The rationale behind Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) is that it would be imprudent to equate every breach of a promise to marry with a false promise and subsequently prosecute the accused for the crime of rape under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore, it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise an offence.
Written By: Harshita Chauhan
B.A.LLB (Hons.) Aligarh Muslim University
LLM from Mangalayathan University
Yet another Lawyer who happens to indulge in the gratification of reading and writing the Language of Law.
Yet another Lawyer who is trying to be better than yesterday.