Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.BASAVARAJA
Swamynaika S/o Kempanaika – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank and status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, H.D.Kote Police submitted charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence under sections 376, 417 of Indian Penal Code.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Prosecutrix and the accused are the residents of Hatvalu Village, H.D.Kote Taluk. The Prosecutrix is not married. She is the only daughter of CW4-Malligamma. Her husband had deserted her when the Prosecutrix was about 5 years old. CW4-Malligamma is aged and short of eye-sight. She and her daughter are eking their livelihood by doing coolie work. The Prosecutrix and the accused belong to the same caste. Accused is married to one Sakamma, however they have no issues.
5. The accused had befriended and lured the Prosecutrix into intimate relationship, promising that he would marry her. He had told the Prosecutrix that as he did not have ch
A consensual relationship, even with a promise to marry, does not constitute rape if the other party is aware of the accused's marital status and consents willingly.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the trial court did not properly analyze evidence, particularly the DNA results excluding the accused as the biological....
Consent in sexual relationships must be scrutinized for deception linked to promises of marriage; a mere breach does not equate to coercion or rape.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a false promise of marriage leading to sexual intercourse constitutes rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and the validity of con....
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.
Rape and cheating – Moral indignation cannot take place of legal proof that cohabitation of parties was on the basis of a dishonest representation of appellant.
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
