Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Rahul Singh @ Rahul Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the BNSS , 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C. (C.A.W), Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in connection with Sessions Trial No.292 of 2023 arising out of Bermo (Mahila) PS Case No.01 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under sections 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for twelve years for the offence under sections 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo RI for six months.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per written report of prosecutrix dated 02.01.2023 is that she developed friendship with the appellant through social media, i.e, Facebook and Instagram. Thereafter, the accused started establishing physical relation with her. On 26.11.2022, the accused took the prosecutrix in the house of his friend Ali Khan where, he forcibly established physical relation with her and when the
Consent for sexual relations is not valid if obtained through deceit regarding marriage, requiring clear evidence of non-consensual elements, especially considering the duration of the relationship.
Prolonged consensual relationships mitigate claims of rape based on a false promise of marriage, requiring distinct evidence of deception regarding consent.
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.
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.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court does not have to go in detail by way of minute examination about correctness or otherwise of facts alleged – Court has to examine the same by taking....
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.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
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
