Back
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Amresh Kumar @ Sonu Son of Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. At the outset, on the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is being taken up for final hearing in view of provision available under Section 374(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), which has also not been objected by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial No. 244/2020 CIS No. 244/2020 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 132 of 2018, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for the short the “I.P.C.”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
Consent obtained under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for the purposes of rape under IPC, emphasizing the need for credible witness testimony.
Consent given under a false promise of marriage is not considered valid consent, and the distinction between rape and consensual sex must be carefully examined based on the active and reasoned delibe....
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
Criminal Law - Charge of Rape - Conviction Upheld - Age of Prosecutrix - Victim was at her tender age when she met the appellant on her way to school. There is no evidence at all that they were in de....
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
Consent in sexual relationships must be scrutinized for deception linked to promises of marriage; a mere breach does not equate to coercion or rape.
Consent given by a victim deeply in love cannot be established as obtained under misrepresentation; the promise of marriage does not negate voluntary consent.
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
