Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.B. Gururaj, Adv. Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Adv. Addya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv.

What is the impact of a false promise of marriage on a prosecutrix's consent under Section 90 IPC in rape cases? What constitutes consent in rape cases where it is alleged to have been obtained on misconception of fact due to a promise to marry, and how does Section 114A Evidence Act apply? Whether a false promise to marry, made with no bona fide intent to marry from inception, can sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC and how the sentence should be calibrated?

Key Points: - (!) The judgment holds that consent given for intercourse on a false promise of marriage amounts to consent obtained on a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC. - (!) Section 114A of the Evidence Act creates a presumption of absence of consent when intercourse is proved and the prosecutrix states she did not consent. - (!) The standard of evaluating consent involves considering whether the promise to marry was made with mala fide intent from inception. - (!) Deepak Gulati and related decisions are discussed to distinguish mere breach of promise from rape, emphasizing deceit and misrepresentation. - (!) The fact that a promise was made at an early stage with immediate relevance is key to determining misconception of fact. - (!) - (!) The Court affirmatively holds that sexual intercourse obtained under misconception of fact constitutes rape under 375 IPC; conviction under 376 IPC is proper. - (!) - (!) The Court discusses the moral and societal implications of rape and affirms conviction despite subsequent marriages of either party. - (!) - (!) The sentence for 376 IPC can be reduced to seven years RI from ten years, as a modification in this case. - (!) - (!) The appellant's arguments relying on prior decisions were rejected; the Court concluded the facts fit the scenario of misconception of fact.

What is the impact of a false promise of marriage on a prosecutrix's consent under Section 90 IPC in rape cases?

What constitutes consent in rape cases where it is alleged to have been obtained on misconception of fact due to a promise to marry, and how does Section 114A Evidence Act apply?

Whether a false promise to marry, made with no bona fide intent to marry from inception, can sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC and how the sentence should be calibrated?