Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD
Nilay Kumar, Son of Sitaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 2828 of 2024 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 13 of 2024 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 98 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 323, 341, 379, 387, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1),(g)(r)(w)(f) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi has rejected bail of the appellant.
2. As per FIR, it is alleged that on 04.10.2016, Nilay (appellant) took the victim at Pahari Mandir, Ranchi where he applied Vermillion (Sindoor) on her forehead and places the Mangalsutra around her neck, a symbolizing marital commitment and thereafter, they established a physical relationship and lived as a couple but after some years, Nilay (appellant) and his family started to harass and humiliate her due to tribal background and in the year 2023, appellant refused to formalize the marriage and exploited her emotionally
Long-term consensual relationships cannot be criminalized as rape unless clear evidence of deceit or malicious intent is established.
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....
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....
Establishing criminal liability for rape based on a false promise of marriage requires evidence of original intent to deceive; an absence of such intent invalidates claims of rape under IPC.
Consent in relationships does not equate to rape unless proven that the promise of marriage was made with no intention to fulfill it; bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception.
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 court emphasized the distinction between consensual relationships and allegations of rape, ruling that mere allegations without evidence of coercion do not suffice for criminal proceedings.
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
