Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar Brahmavar S/o Bhaskara – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.46/2024, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 354A(1)(i), 354A(2), 504, 506, 509, 417, 201, 109 r/w. 34 of the IPC .
2. Heard Sri Raghunatha K., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The second respondent is the complaint. The petitioner - accused No.1 is said to have relationship with the complainant, on the score that they were known to each other since childhood. The friendship appears to have blossomed into relationship and the relationship getting physical as well, on the pretext of promise of marriage. The talks of marriage take place and on rejection of the marriage proposal, a crime then emerges in crime No.17/2023, on a complaint registered by the second respondent, for the allegations of repeated rape, as obtaining under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC , on the pretext of marriage. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet and maintained the afore-quoted offences
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
The court established that consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of deceit or lack of consent, emphasizing the importance ....
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for rape; a distinction exists between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of voluntary consent and the absence of deceit or false promises in determining the nature of a relationship and distinguishing b....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
