SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 212

N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH
Uday – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the role of consent under section 375 IPC when obtained by a promise to marry and is such consent vitiated by misconception of fact? What is the applicability of Section 90 IPC to consent in rape cases where consent is obtained by a false promise of marriage? How should courts determine whether prosecutrix’s consent was voluntary or received under a misconception of fact in cases involving inter-caste relationships and promises of marriage?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the role of consent under section 375 IPC when obtained by a promise to marry and is such consent vitiated by misconception of fact?

What is the applicability of Section 90 IPC to consent in rape cases where consent is obtained by a false promise of marriage?

How should courts determine whether prosecutrix’s consent was voluntary or received under a misconception of fact in cases involving inter-caste relationships and promises of marriage?


JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 20th April, 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1992 whereby the High Court while dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Earlier the Sessions Judge, Karwar before whom the appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 16/90, by his judgment and order dated 27th November, 1992 sentenced the appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He also directed that out of the fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be given to the prosecutrix/complainant. The trial court as well as the High Court have concurrently held that though the prosecutrix had consented to sexual intercourse with the appellant, the consent was obtained by fraud and deception inasmuch as the appellant induced her to con


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top