Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. BASAVARAJA
Deepu @ Deepan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By The Srirampuram Police Bangalore City – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. Basavaraja, J.
The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH 46) in S.C. No.918/2007 dated 11.07.2013.
2. Parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Inspector of Police, Srirampura Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ').
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused and the prosecutrix were residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Srirampura, Bangalore. One year prior to 01.08.2007, the accused got acquainted with the prosecutrix, as he was staying near her house and used to visit the house of prosecutrix often. The accused promised the prosecutrix that he is in love with her and he would marry her and that promise developed a physical relationship. While the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, as a result, the prosecutrix became pregnant. On knowing about her p
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....
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.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage from a minor is invalid, establishing the accused's guilt under relevant sexual assault laws.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a promise to marry leading to sexual intercourse, if proven to be a 'misconception of fact,' can lead to a conviction under Section 376 IPC....
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is invalid, constituting cheating under Section 417 of IPC.
The conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence of lack of consent and significant doubts raised by the circumstantial evidence.
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
