Back
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Mugi Uday Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.383 of 2025 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 75(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(for brevity ‘the BNS Act’).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 Perused the record.
3. As seen from the record, the petitioner and the respondent No.2/victim loved each other. They developed physical relations also. Later, the petitioner, aged about 23 years, refused to marry the respondent No.2, aged about 21 years. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 continued for more than three years and as the petitioner refused to marry the respondent No.2, she gave a report to the police. The petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 56 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of PVR
Misconception of fact – Merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, it would not, by itself, amount to rape.
Consent given under a false promise to marry must be proven as knowingly false from the outset for an accusation of rape to succeed; consensual relationships later turning sour do not invoke criminal....
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.
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.
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.
The legal principle established is that consent given under a false promise of marriage must involve an active and reasoned deliberation, and the promise of marriage must have been a false promise gi....
Long-term consensual relationships cannot be criminalized as rape unless clear evidence of deceit or malicious intent is established.
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.
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
