Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Anil Kumar Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
I.A. No. 2197 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 31.07.2024 passed in S.T. Case No. 45 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-FTC for Rape Cases, Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 76 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years along with fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo imprisonment for six months.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per typed report of prosecutrix dated 23.03.2021 is that she developed friendship with the appellant Anil Kumar Mehta through Facebook in the year 2018. Thereafter the appellant proposed her for marriage. It is alleged that during 'Holi' festival of the year 2018 the appellant took her to Hazaribagh Mourya colony and kept her in a house where he forcibly established physical relation with her on promise of marri
Prolonged consensual relationships mitigate claims of rape based on a false promise of marriage, requiring distinct evidence of deception regarding consent.
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 undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
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.
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....
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
