Evidence Law

Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

AIR 2019 SC 1857; (2019) 13 SCC 1

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 1857; (2019) 13 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 9 April 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah JJ.

Facts

Anurag Soni and the prosecutrix knew each other and were in a relationship.
The prosecutrix stated that Anurag repeatedly promised to marry her.
Relying upon that promise, she consented to sexual relations.
The accused later refused to marry her.
Evidence showed that, while continuing to assure the prosecutrix of marriage:
his family was negotiating his marriage with another woman;
he was aware of those arrangements;
he did not disclose them to the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix alleged that her consent had been obtained through a false promise.
The trial court convicted Anurag of rape.
The High Court affirmed the conviction.
The accused argued that:
the relationship was consensual;
the promise was genuine when made;
later failure to marry did not retrospectively convert consensual intercourse into rape.
The evidentiary question was whether his intention at the time of making the promise could be inferred from subsequent and surrounding conduct.
This is not technically a statutory-presumption judgment, even though it is sometimes placed under that syllabus heading.

Issue

Whether the promise of marriage was false from its inception.
Whether the prosecutrix consented because of a misconception of fact.
What evidence could establish the accused’s state of mind when the promise was made.

Rule

Mere breach of a genuine promise to marry does not automatically establish rape.
The prosecution must distinguish between:
a promise honestly made but later not fulfilled; and
a promise which the accused never intended to fulfil.
Intention is a mental fact and is rarely proved through direct evidence.
It may be inferred from:
contemporaneous conduct;
concealment of material facts;
parallel marriage negotiations;
the timing of the refusal;
consistency of the prosecutrix’s account.
The prosecution must establish a direct connection between:
the false promise;
the prosecutrix’s consent.
The court must not presume falsity merely because the parties did not eventually marry.

Application

The Court examined the accused’s conduct at the time he continued making assurances.
The evidence showed that his marriage with another woman was not a sudden later development.
Arrangements were already progressing while he continued to represent to the prosecutrix that he would marry her.
He knew that his family had fixed or was finalising another marriage.
He concealed this fact.
The concealment was important because it showed that:
his assurance did not reflect his actual intention;
he was inducing the prosecutrix to act upon information he knew to be false.
The prosecutrix’s evidence was found:
consistent;
natural;
supported by surrounding circumstances.
There was no material showing that she had consented to a casual relationship irrespective of marriage.
Her consent was specifically linked to the assurance of marriage.
The Court did not base its conclusion merely upon the fact that Anurag later married another woman.
It relied upon the overlap between:
his assurances to the prosecutrix;
his knowledge of the other marriage arrangements;
his failure to disclose them.
Those circumstances allowed the court to infer his state of mind at the relevant time.
The case illustrates the evidentiary principle that intention may be proved by conduct before, during and immediately after the relevant transaction.
However, the judgment should not be read as creating a presumption that every failed relationship involves a fraudulent promise.
Each case requires proof that the promise was dishonest when made.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Anurag’s promise to marry was false from the beginning.
He had no genuine intention of marrying the prosecutrix when he induced her consent.
Her consent was therefore obtained under a misconception of fact.
The conviction was maintained.
The sentence was reduced from ten years to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The Evidence Law significance lies in the use of surrounding circumstances to infer a concealed dishonest intention.