NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

Session – (2019-2020)

TRIMESTER – I

PROJECT – COMMON LAW METHOD

CASE ANALYSIS

OF
ANURAG SONI

V.

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam Deepti Uikey

ASSOCIATE PROF. 2019BALLB122

Prof. (Dr.) Amit pratap singh section – B
 Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

HON’BLE JUDGES – M. R SHAH AND L. NAGESWARA RAO

A division bench

DECIDED ON – April 09, 2019

 TABLE OF CONTENT

Concrete facts of the case…………………………………………………..5

Material facts of the case……………………………………………………..6-7

Argument on the behalf of the appellant…………………………………8

Argument on the behalf of the respondent…………………………………8-9

Concrete judgment of the case………………………………………………………9

Ratio decidendi…………………………………………………………………………….10
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I
would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to director (Dr.) V.
Vijaykumar, Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam and Amit Pratap Singh Sir for guiding me
throughout the inception and genesis of the paper into a whole by advising me and
helping me with their experience and expertise. I would also like to thank the
officials of the Gyan mandir library, NLIU for helping me to find the appropriate
research material for this study. I am deep indebted to my parents, seniors and
friends for all the moral support and encouragement.
CONCRETE FACTS OF THE CASE

 In this case Anurag Soni was a familiar to a girl who doing to studied of
Pharmacy on Bhilai.

 He was posted a junior doctor in the government hospital of Maalkharoda.

 They are in love affair which their respective family have the knowledge
about all of this.

 He express his intention towards her that he wants to meet her at tomorrow
in Maalkharoda, accordingly she come there place.

 Where she stayed at least one day and during this time he despite to her and
established physical relation with her on the pretext of marrying her.

 He said her that after two or three days he talk to his family about their
marriage but he don’t do so at time according to their pretext.

 And he also told her that don’t say anything about this in front of someone.

 But after he don’t do so then, she informed her family about their
relationship then her family meet his family and decided that marriage was
only the option available.

 After this meeting they found that Anurag Soni was a married with another
girl.

 Then she submitted written report in the police station Maalkharoda in

respect of rape case.
MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

 The prosecution case in brief was that the prosecutrix was that the
prosecutrix was the resident of Koni, Bilaspur, and District Bilaspur.

 Prosecutrix was familiar with the accused (Anurag Soni) since 2009.
 And, there was love affair between them.

 This fact was within the knowledge of their respective family members.
 At the time of incident, accused was posted on Junior Doctor in the
government hospital of Maalkharoda.

 And at this time, the prosecutrix was doing her studied on Pharmacy in
Bhilai.

 On 28/04/2013 the accused expressed his desire to the prosecutrix that he

wanted to meet her and accordingly on 29/04/2013 at 7.25 a.m the
prosecutrix boarded Durg Expression train and reached Sakti railway station
from where the accused took her on a motorcycle to his house situated at
Maalkharoda.

 She stayed from 2pm of 29/04/2013 to 3pm of 30/04/2013 and during this
period despite refusal of the prosecutrix the accused established physical
relationship with her on the pretext of marrying her.

 The accused told her that don’t say anything in front of everyone and
prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anyone.

 He said her that on 1st or 2nd May he will talk to his family about their
marriage.
 Next day accused drop prosecutrix at Railway station, Bilaspur from where
she boarded train for Bhilai ( Durg)

 But from 02/05/2013 to 05/05/2013 the repeatedly asked from accused about
a marriage and she didn’t receive any reply from the accused.

 On 06/05/2013 prosecutrix informed her family about the incident and then
the family member of the prosecutrix had gone to the house of accused at
village Kharod and informed the family member about this incident .

 The family member of accused said that now marriage of accused and
prosecutrix was the only option available.

 After keeping the prosecutrix and her family members in dark for two
months, the accused had refused to marry the prosecutrix and performed
marriage with another girl.

 On 21/0/2013 the prosecutrix submitted written report ( Ex. P-3) in the

police station Maalkharoda in respect of rape committed by the accused
upon her on the pretext of marriage based on which FIR ( Ex. P-4) for the
offence under Section Of IPC was registered against the accused.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPLELLANT

Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned the senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

accused has submitted that –

 Prosecutrix and accused both are in love affair and she wants to marry him,
and about their relationship her family was aware that the marriage of
appellant is always fixed with Priyanka Soni. Despite her family pressurize
the accused to marry the prosecutrix.

 If assuming that accused that the accuse gave promise to prosecutrix to

marry and there after the accused didn’t marry the prosecutrix, the same can
be said to be a “ breach of Promise” and can’t be said to be rape under
section 375 of the IPC.

 He also submitted that the facts the accused has married one Priyanka Soni
and even the prosecution also get married.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONTED

Shri Pranav Sachdeva Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned advocate behalf of the
state of Chhattisgarh as well as the original complainant – prosecutrix respectively,
he state that-

 The present case was not to mere breach of promise to marry, it was
intention to accused was not marry to prosecutrix and he was always
marries to Priyanka Soni.

 The accused gave assurance and promise that he would marry, the
prosecutrix gave consent.
 The consent obtained by the accused on misconception of fact and therefore
the same can’t be said to be a consent even considering section 90 of the
IPC.
  Accused was always married with Priyanka Soni, despite he giving false
promise to marry with prosecutrix and obtained her consent.

 Consent on misconception of fact and on consensual sex.

CONCRETE JUDGMENT OF CASE

 Judge of supreme court gave their decision that accused obtained her
consent by pretext to marry with prosecutrix and establish sexual intercourse
i..e he committed rape under section of 375 of IPC.

 And according to section 90 which describe about consent that if consent

have fear or by misconception,So he also committed cheat with her.

 Section 376 0f IPC accused was convicted and gave punishment.

 It was a clear of cheating and deception


RATIO DECEDENTI

 The consent given by the prosecutrix was on misconception of facts. Such

incidents are on increase now-a-days.

 According to section 90 of IPC, if consent was given by mischief, in

intoxication state, given by below 12 years old and given by child is called
consensual sex which was increase in our society.