Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Avadh Kishore delivered the verdict in Sessions Case No. 62/2024, convicting the accused, Sevak Ram Mirza, a resident of Seja village in Raipur district, under Section 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with repeated rape of the same woman.
According to the prosecution, the victim came into contact with the accused through Facebook in June 2022. He initiated conversation expressing his intention to marry her and gradually gained her trust. Their first meeting took place on July 23, 2022, at a mall in Raipur, where he assured her that he would marry her regardless of whether his family agreed. He remained in touch afterward and even arranged a phone conversation between the victim and his mother to strengthen his promise.
On November 18, 2022, the accused allegedly took the woman to his rented room in Padum Nagar and, reiterating his marriage promise, forced physical relations. When she resisted, he reportedly told her she was his future wife. The victim testified that from 2022 to 2023 he repeatedly had sexual relations with her on the same assurance.
The situation escalated in November 2023 when he again met her in a rented room in Raipur, despite secretly preparing to get engaged to another woman. On February 4, 2024, the victim learned about his engagement. When she confronted him, he initially denied it and later offered excuses. On February 20, he arrived at her house with four others and declared he no longer wished to continue the relationship.
A meeting between both families was held on February 29, 2024, at a restaurant in Pandri, Raipur, where he again agreed to marry her. However, on March 6, 2024, he married another woman.
During trial, the accused denied both the relationship and any promise of marriage. However, WhatsApp chats, digital evidence, and witness testimony contradicted his claims. The court observed that his statements were an attempt to mislead judicial proceedings.
In its judgment, the court emphasized that in rape cases, credible and consistent testimony from the victim alone can be sufficient for conviction. It found her statements in the FIR, before the magistrate, and during trial consistent and reliable, with no grounds for doubt.
The court concluded that the woman’s consent was obtained under a misconception created by a false promise of marriage and was therefore legally invalid. It ruled that the accused never intended to marry her and instead used the promise as a tool for exploitation.
Along with the prison sentence, the court imposed a ₹5,000 fine, with an additional one-month simple imprisonment if the fine is not paid. The period already spent in custody will be set off against the sentence. The court issued a warrant committing the convict to Central Jail, Durg.
