Delhi High Court
Ashok vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 25 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 21.08.2025
Pronounced on : 25.08.2025
+ CRL.A.120/2017
ASHOK .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate
with Mr Rishabh Dahiya and Ms
Ananya Mohant, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
Ms Sowjanya, Amicus Curiae
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant stands convicted in the proceedings arising out of FIR
No. 316/2011 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at P.S Vivek Vihar.
Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 08.11.2016, convicted the appellant for
offences punishable under Sections 376/420 IPC. Vide order on sentence
dated 07.12.2016, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years
along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo 6
months RI, for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was
further sentenced to 5 years RI along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default
whereof he would undergo 6 months RI, for the offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and
benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
2. The brief facts of the prosecution in a nutshell noted by the Trial
Court are as under:
“1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 28.10.2011 a
complaint was as made by Ms. ‘S’ (name withheld), daughter of XXX
that she is resident of XXX. She got divorce from her earlier husband
and resides alone. She has a shop of garments in XXX since January.
One boy in the name of Ashok used to come to her shop for showing
clothes and thereafter he came several times at her shop for showing
clothes and whenever he came for showing clothes he used to talk
with her out of context and during conversation he started
increasing closeness with her and started playing drama of love. He
told her that he is unmarried and has three swimming pools in Delhi
and is resident of Rohtak, Haryana.
In the year 2007, complainant sold her one plot for a sum of
Rs.23,50,000/- and amount received in lieu of that plot was
deposited in her account at Central Bank of India XXX and she got
FDR of that amount. The aforesaid Ashok started taking money from
complainant after getting premature withdrawal of the FDR. He won
her faith due to his company with her and gave a proposal of
marriage to her. He trapped her on giving the assurance of marriage
and started making physical relation with her. In May 2011, he told
her that he is purchasing a plot of 200 sq. yards in Rohtak for which
he has an urgent need of money. On this he took Rs.3,50,000/- from
her on 25th May 2011 and thereafter told her that before performing
marriage, they would construct the plot and thereupon would reside
in the said house. On 25.06.2011 he again took Rs.3 lacs from her.
Thereafter, he asked her that he has to purchase something for
marriage and by inducing her with his love, he took ATM card of
HDFC and Central Bank of India from her and said Ashok withdrew
Rs.10,000/- on 16.06.2011, again Rs.10,000/- on 16.06.2011,
Rs.10,000/- on 19.06.2011, Rs.10,000/- on 29.06.2011 and
Rs.10,000/- on 18.07.2011 from ATM Branch at Rohtak and from
other branches and in this manner the said Ashok withdrew
Rs.5,50,000/- through the ATM cards of the complainant (statement
of account regarding withdrawal is attached).
It was further stated that Ashok played a creepy game with
her and he took money from her and also threatened the complainant
on telephone to do whatever she can do and further threatened that
in case she will make any complaint against him, he would kill her
as he has relations with police officials and leaders. He furtherSignature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
threatened the complainant that he only played a drama with her
and to see his mind that he made physical relation with her and also
took money from her and how innocent she is that she surrendered
herself and whenever he demanded money from her, she used to give
money with love and affection. Therefore, it was prayed to register a
FIR under appropriate section against Ashok for misleading the
complainant, deceiving her for marriage and on such deception
having sexual relation with complainant….”
3. On conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges
against the appellant were framed under Sections 376/506 IPC. Thereafter,
on an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. being filed, an additional charge
under Section 420 IPC was also framed against the appellant.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 13 witnesses in
total. The material witnesses were the prosecutrix, who was examined as
PW-10; Om Prakash, in whose house the prosecutrix was residing as a
tenant, examined as PW-5; and Dr. Vandana Jain and Dr. Reetesh Ranjan,
who had medically examined the prosecutrix, appeared as PW-7 and PW-8
respectively.
The appellant, while claiming innocence, examined three defence
witnesses in his support.
5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment. The first plank of
the appellant’s challenge to the impugned judgment is the unreliability of the
testimony of the prosecutrix as the same is not only full of material
improvements, but also contrary to the testimony of the public witness i.e.,
Om Prakash/PW-5, who was her landlord. In this regard, it is contended that
the initial complaint of the prosecutrix is silent on the aspect of forceful
sexual intercourse. Similarly, the complaint is also silent on the aspect of
cash withdrawals. It is next contented that the prosecutrix, being a divorcee
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
and in her thirties, could not have been misled by a promise of marriage over
a period of several months, as alleged. Lastly, it is contended that the Trial
Court failed to appreciate the testimony of defence witnesses, who stand on
an equal footing with the prosecution witnesses.
6. The appellant’s contentions were vehemently denied by the learned
APP for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the victim. It
is stated that the appellant had no intention to fulfil the promise of marriage
from the beginning and established physical relations with the prosecutrix
by misleading her. On two occasions, physical relations were forcibly
established. Though the appellant got married, he continued to exploit the
prosecutrix by withdrawing amounts from her bank. The details of such
payments are duly proved through her bank statements placed on record.
7. Before proceeding further, it is deemed apposite to extract the charges
framed against the appellant:
“Firstly, That during the period between 20-1-11 to 09.10.2011 at
house No. XXX within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, you
committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix XXX many times
on the false promise of marriage and thus obtained her consent for
sexual intercourse by misrepresentation and thereby committed the
offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC within the
cognizance of this court.
Secondly, that on or before 09.10.2011 and during the period
between 25.05.2011 to 09.10.2011, you accused withdrew Rs.5.5
lakhs from the ATM of the prosecutrix and then criminally
intimidated her by threatening to kill her in case she made complaint
to the police and thereby committed the offence of rape punishable
under Section 506 IPC within the cognizance of this court….”
8. As recorded earlier, an additional charge was also framed, which
reads as follows:
“That on 25.05.11 and on 26.05.11 at XXX you induced complaint
XXX to hand over money on the pretext of purchasing plot at RohtakSignature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
and on false promise of marriage and on both the dates, by above
said inducement you received 3 to 3.5 lacs each and her ATM Card
from complainant and you also withdrew a total amount of Rs.5.5
lacs from her account on different occasions using her ATM Card
and thus thereby you committed and office punishable under Section
420 IPC and within the cognizance of this court….”
9. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-10. Perusal of her deposition
reveals that she stated that she got married in the year 2001 whereafter in the
year 2006, she obtained divorce by mutual consent in Ahmedabad. She
further claimed that she was running a garment shop in her name in
Jagatpuri, Delhi. She stated that, in January 2011, the appellant, who used to
visit her shop to show her clothes, became aware that the family of
prosecutrix was looking for a suitable match for her marriage, and upon
coming to know of this, developed proximity with her and started visiting
her house. The deposition further states that the appellant, under the pretext
of marrying her, developed physical relations that continued over a period of
time. She specifically claimed that the said relations were twice established
without her consent. Firstly, on 20.01.2011, after closure of her shop, the
appellant accompanied her to her house and, despite her refusal forcefully
held her mouth and had sexual intercourse with her. She felt perturbed,
whereupon the appellant assured her that he would introduce his mother and
sister to her and talk to them about marriage. She also claimed that, at that
time, the appellant touched her feet and reassured her about marrying her.
Thereafter, for 10-15 days, the appellant visited her home, but no physical
relations were established. The appellant’s visits were also noted by the
landlord, Om Prakash, who rebuked the prosecutrix and counseled her to not
let the appellant visit till she introduced him to her family. She claimed that
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
sexual relations were maintained for 4-5 months.
According to her deposition, the second such incident occurred 3-4
months after January 2011, when the appellant came to her house along with
3-4 friends for dinner. They consumed liquor, and the friends also assured
her that the appellant intended to marry her. After the friends left, the
appellant, despite being stopped by the prosecutrix, forcefully pressed her
mouth and had sexual intercourse with her.
The deposition, except for the above two incidents, does not speak of
any other instance where physical relations were established forcefully. The
prosecutrix has stated that on other occasions, relations were established on
the assurance that the appellant would marry her.
Besides above, the prosecutrix also deposed that she had withdrawn
amounts from her bank account after encashing her fixed deposit, and the
sums thereunder were handed over to the appellant on his demand. The
appellant also handed over an affidavit (Ex. PW-10/C) in which he admitted
to having established physical relations with the prosecutrix and reiterated
his intention to marry her. The affidavit further mentions that the appellant
had borrowed sums from the prosecutrix for the purpose of buying a flat, in
which he intended to live with her after marriage.
10. The prosecutrix, in support of her deposition that on two occasions
she encashed her fixed deposits and paid sums to the appellant for him to
purchase a flat, relied upon her bank statements. She further stated that even
her ATM card, given to the appellant, was misused by him by withdrawing
large sums, and upon coming to know of the same, she requested the bank to
block the card. The deposition of the prosecutrix has been doubted by the
appellant, as the two specific incidents of forcible sexual relations were not
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
stated by her in her previous statement (Ex. PW-10/A). A perusal of the
deposition shows that she was confronted with her earlier statement where
she had not stated either about the incident of 20th January 2011 or about the
occasion when the appellant allegedly came with friends and, after the
friends had left, committed forcible sexual intercourse.
11. She was also confronted with other portions of her aforesaid
statement, where she had not stated about the appellant accompanying her to
the bank at the time of encashment of the fixed deposits. She was further
confronted with her earlier statement, where she had not stated that she had
accompanied the appellant to Rohtak for making payment for the purchase
of a plot.
12. Besides the above, a suggestion was given on behalf of the appellant
that the prosecutrix had first met the appellant at the house of one Suresh
Kadyan in Pratap Nagar, where they had established consensual sexual
relations. It was suggested that Suresh Kadyan was a friend of the appellant,
and had a girlfriend named ‘S’, whom the prosecutrix already knew. On
request of ‘S’, the prosecutrix had come to Pratap Nagar and stayed
overnight, where ‘S’ had also introduced her to the appellant. The witness
responded by stating that it was incorrect that she had met the appellant for
the first time at the house in Pratap Nagar. She volunteered that after the
registration of the case, she had gone to Pratap Nagar and the appellant was
not there. The prosecutrix denied the suggestion that she had stayed with the
appellant in Pratap Nagar. Further suggestions were also given that the
prosecutrix was aware that the appellant had got married and that, for this
purpose, she had lent her car to the appellant to go on honeymoon (Ex. PW-
10/D1 to D4). Further, a perusal of the deposition reveals that the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
prosecutrix had claimed to be a tenant of Om Prakash/PW-5 since 2010,
stating that she had initially taken one room on the second floor whereafter
another room was also taken on rent. Though her deposition does not refer
to specific dates, the general point of reference for events is January 2011.
Interestingly, however, the deposition of Om Prakash/PW-5 reveals that the
prosecutrix became his tenant only in the month of May 2011. He claimed
that a notarized rent agreement was also signed and a copy of the same was
available with him. The rent agreement, however, did not seen the light of
day in the trial. In his deposition, he claimed to have accompanied the
prosecutrix to the bank for encashment of fixed deposits however, he was
confronted with his statement made during the investigation where he has
not stated so.
13. The appellant, at the time of recording of his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., claimed that intimate relations with the prosecutrix had been
consensual and denied executing any agreement, further alleging it to be
fabricated. In support of his defence, he examined three witnesses. The
prosecutrix had claimed that the appellant had got one Sittu, who was known
to him, employed at her shop. Sittu was examined as DW-1. He confirmed
the said fact and further stated that he worked at the shop of the prosecutrix
for five months during which he used to sleep at her house as he had no
other place to stay. He further deposed that on a few occasions, the appellant
had given him money to give to the prosecutrix, and the appellant had given
his marriage card to him, as well as to the prosecutrix; however, she did not
attend.
The appellant further examined one Vijay Kumar, a nephew of the
appellant, as DW-2. He deposed that the appellant had got married on
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
17.06.2011 and that he had met the prosecutrix on 12.08.2011 for the
purpose of borrowing her car.
The third defence witness, Suresh Kadyan, was examined as DW-3.
He deposed that in January 2011, he had come to Delhi, along with the
appellant, from his village. His friend ‘S’ knew the prosecutrix, and at her
asking, the prosecutrix visited Pratap Nagar and stayed there overnight,
where he slept with ‘S’ while the prosecutrix slept with the appellant. The
witness denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had never visited Pratap
Nagar or slept with the appellant at Pratap Nagar.
14. From the above, it is evident that the prosecutrix, who was in her
thirties and a divorcee, had lodged a complaint against the appellant via a
typed complaint dated 28.10.2011, in which she made no mention of any
forcible sexual relations.
A careful perusal of the complaint indicates that the sexual relations
were established consensually, albeit on a promise of marriage, and the
relations were maintained over a considerable period of time. As per the
prosecutrix’s own deposition, the relations between her and the appellant
continued for about 4-5 months. Concededly, the relations were established
at prosecutrix’s own home and against the advice of her landlord. The
prosecutrix herself claimed that she had doubted the intentions of the
appellant, however, continued to maintain relations with him.
15. A sexual relationship sustained over a period of time between two
matured individuals raises a presumption that there was valid and informed
consent. If, at the time of making a promise of marriage, the promisor has no
intention of abiding by it and makes it solely to deceive the woman into
engaging in sexual relations with him, there would be a misconception of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
fact vitiating the woman’s consent; however, a subsequent breach of
promise, by itself, does not make the promise a false one. To establish a
false promise, the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the maker of
the promise had no intention of keeping it at the time of making the promise
[Ref: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra, reported as (2019)
9 SCC 608].
While seized of allegations relating to false promise of marriage, the
Supreme Court, in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported as (2013) 7
SCC 675, observed as under:
“21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided,
obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason,
accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance,
the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between
rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very
carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry
the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise
to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the
ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the
mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus,
the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a
false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent
involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and
consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the
prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love
and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of
misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused
on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or
which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite
having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated
differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court
reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide,
and that he had clandestine motives.”
16. In Ravish Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported as (2025)
SCC OnLine SC 1055, the Supreme Court, once again, while taking note of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
its earlier decisions, observed that when a relationship is spread over a
considerable period of time and includes circumstances of cohabitation as a
live-in couple, a presumption arises that such a relationship is consensual.
The Court observed as under:
14. In the instant case also, we find that the relationship between the
appellant and the second respondent (the informant) was spread
over two years. Further, they not only admit of having physical
relations with each other but also of living together in a rented
accommodation as a live-in couple. In our view, if two able-minded
adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of
years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that
they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its
consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was
entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the
circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is
no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been
established had there been no promise to marry.
15. Moreover, in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may
arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish
to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of
desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being
a consequence of that expression of desire or wish. A decade or two
earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now
more and more women are financially independent and have the
capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own
terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of
such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature
comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the
Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of
the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a
relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a
marital bond.
16. In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the long-
drawn relationship of the appellant and the second respondent
including the circumstance of their living together and cohabiting
with each other, that too, in a separate rented accommodation,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was based
on a valid consent.
17. The settlement agreement, dated 19.11.2023, which is not
disputed by the second respondent, points out that the parties had
been in love. In such circumstances, we are of the view that on
ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to
prosecution for the offence of rape. The other allegations of assault
and abuse have not been supported by any material particulars.
Even the alleged sexual assault on 18.11.2023 is negated by the
recital in the settlement agreement that parties love each other.”
17. At this stage, the Court further takes notes of the recent judgment of
the Supreme Court in Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported as
(2025) 5 SCC 764, where, in a challenge to the High Court’s refusal to
quash an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506, the Supreme
Court, while taking note of its earlier decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), quashed the FIR by observing that a mere
breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in
initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship
between the parties at the initial stage cannot be given a colour of
criminality when it does not fructify into a marital relationship. The Court
further noted the fact that though the complainant stated that the accused had
a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the
accused thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during such period.
The Court observed that:
“18. It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to
meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical
relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her
part…”
18. Not only on a careful conspectus of events, but also in light of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
decisions referred hereinabove, this Court is of the conclusive opinion that
the prosecutrix’s testimony is full of improvements over her previous
statements and the same cannot be held to be credible or reliable, especially
in the backdrop of her relationship with the appellant having continued for a
considerable period of time without the registration of a complaint. It cannot
be stated that the prosecutrix’s consent was vitiated.
19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside, and
the appellant is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled, and sureties stand
discharged.
20. A copy of this decision be communicated to the Trial Court as well as
to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 25, 2025
pmc
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A.120/2017 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:26.08.2025
17:59:42
[ad_1]
Source link