The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that consent obtained through deception, coercion, and fraudulent alteration of identity documents cannot validate a marriage or absolve accused of trafficking under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This judgment reinforces that exploitation disguised as voluntary arrangement remains a criminal act under the law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case involves four accused - Jagdish Kumar, Maneesh Sharma, Laxmi Bai, and Salim Mohammad - who were convicted for trafficking a woman from Chhattisgarh to Rajasthan under false pretenses, altering her caste and identity documents, and forcibly marrying her to Maneesh Sharma. The victim, a Satnami woman and mother of three, was lured under the guise of employment, transported across state lines, and subjected to identity fraud to facilitate a marriage she did not freely consent to.
Procedural History
- 12 February 2021: Victim taken from Chhattisgarh to Bhilai by Laxmi Bai under promise of work.
- 14 February 2021: Transported in a car driven by Salim Mohammad to Nagaur, Rajasthan, with Jagdish Kumar present.
- 16 February 2021: Victim forced to sign marriage documents; Aadhaar card altered to show her as Brahmin and daughter of her father, not husband.
- 17 February 2021: Forced marriage solemnized with Maneesh Sharma; victim’s mobile SIM seized.
- 2 March 2021: Victim recovered by police from Maneesh Sharma’s home in Bhakri.
- 12 March 2021: Written complaint lodged at Police Post Tumdibod; FIR registered under Sections 366, 370, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act.
- 7 May 2024: Special Judge convicted all four accused and sentenced them to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment each with fine.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought acquittal on grounds of delayed FIR, alleged consensual relationship, contradictions in victim’s testimony, and absence of direct evidence linking them to trafficking. They argued that the victim’s voluntary conduct negated the essential ingredients of Sections 366 and 370 IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether consent obtained through deception, coercion, and fraudulent alteration of caste and identity documents can negate criminal liability under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly when the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for all appellants contended that the victim, being a major woman with three children, acted voluntarily throughout. They relied on Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Lakhan Bandra v. State of Chhattisgarh to argue that where evidence shows free consent and no physical restraint, conviction under Sections 366 and 370 IPC cannot stand. They emphasized that PW-2 (Ajay Singh) and PW-7 (Panna Lal) corroborated the victim’s participation in signing documents and attending the marriage without protest. They further argued that mere presence or transportation without proof of exploitation does not constitute trafficking under Section 370 IPC, citing Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Chandru S. v. State of Karnataka.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the victim’s consent was vitiated by fraud and coercion. The prosecution highlighted that the victim was misled about the purpose of travel, her caste was fraudulently altered, her communication was restricted, and she was threatened with death if she disclosed the truth. The State relied on the victim’s consistent testimony, seizure of altered Aadhaar and marriage documents, medical evidence of sexual intercourse, and the fact that the victim was recovered only after police intervention. It argued that the appellants’ collective conduct fulfilled the statutory definition of trafficking under Section 370 IPC, which includes recruitment, transportation, and harboring for exploitation through deception.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the victim’s testimony, corroborated by documentary and medical evidence. It held that consent obtained under false pretenses, especially when coupled with identity fraud and psychological coercion, is not legally valid. The Court emphasized that Section 370 IPC requires proof of recruitment, transportation, or harboring for exploitation through force, threat, fraud, or deception. The Court found that the accused exploited the victim’s socio-economic vulnerability and caste identity to manipulate her into marriage.
"The prosecutrix was not merely persuaded - she was deceived into believing she was entering into lawful employment, only to be transported across state lines, stripped of her identity, and forced into marriage under threat of violence."
The Court distinguished Ajeet Singh and Lakhan Bandra, noting that those cases involved consensual relationships without fraud or coercion. Here, the victim’s caste was deliberately falsified from Satnami to Brahmin - a critical act under the Atrocity Act, which prohibits such identity manipulation to deny Scheduled Caste protections. The Court held that altering caste documents to facilitate marriage constitutes an atrocity under Section 3(2)(v).
The Court further rejected the argument that absence of physical confinement negated trafficking. It held that psychological coercion, restriction of communication, and financial exploitation through dowry (Rs. 2 lakh) are sufficient to establish exploitation under Section 370 IPC. The role of each accused was individually assessed: Salim Mohammad facilitated transport, Laxmi Bai orchestrated deception, Jagdish Kumar provided active support, and Maneesh Sharma was the principal beneficiary of the fraudulent marriage.
The Court also dismissed the delay in FIR as irrelevant, noting that victims in trafficking cases often remain under duress and fear, and the complaint was lodged immediately upon recovery.
The Verdict
The appellants lost. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of all four accused under Sections 366 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court held that consent obtained through deception, caste fraud, and psychological coercion is invalid, and trafficking is established even without physical restraint when exploitation is proven through documentary and circumstantial evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent by Deception Is Not a Defense
- Practitioners must now argue that any consent obtained through false promises, identity fraud, or caste manipulation is legally void under Sections 366 and 370 IPC.
- In cases involving marginalized women, courts will scrutinize whether the victim’s autonomy was genuinely exercised or manipulated through socio-economic pressure.
- Defense claims of "voluntary marriage" must be rebutted with evidence of deception, such as altered documents, restricted communication, or financial coercion.
Trafficking Requires No Physical Force - Psychological Coercion Suffices
- Section 370 IPC does not require physical confinement; psychological control, isolation, and financial exploitation are sufficient to establish trafficking.
- The seizure of mobile phones, alteration of identity documents, and payment of dowry can now be treated as indicators of exploitation, not mere social practices.
- Practitioners should prioritize documentary evidence (Aadhaar, marriage deeds, call records) over witness testimony alone.
Caste Fraud Triggers Atrocity Act Liability
- Falsifying caste status to facilitate marriage or employment of a Scheduled Caste person constitutes an atrocity under Section 3(2)(v), even if no physical violence occurs.
- This judgment expands the scope of the Atrocity Act beyond physical abuse to include systemic identity erasure as a form of caste-based exploitation.
- Prosecutors must now routinely seek forensic verification of caste certificates and Aadhaar records in all trafficking cases involving SC/ST victims.
