Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
Udaya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, All Women Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014.
2. The Prosecution came to be launched against the Appellant by the complainant-PW1, who is also the victim in this case. It is the case of the complainant that during the year 2011, a phone call was received in her brother's mobile phone and when she attended it, the line was disconnected. Therefore, PW1 sent a message as to who he is and why he called the mobile number of her brother. The Appellant replied by stating that he is the friend of the brother of PW1. Thereafter, both of them mutually exchanged messages through the mobile phone number of P.W-1 bearing No. XXXXXXXXXX. Later, the Appellant Accused said that he fell in love with her. In response, the Appellant said to have informed that she belonged to a different caste. However, the Appellant said that he will manage everything. Accordingly, on 30th November 2011, the Appellant called P.W-1 in her mobile number and ascertained that there is none in the house and P.W-1 is alone. Therefore, at about 10.30 am the Appellant came to the house of
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is invalid, constituting cheating under Section 417 of IPC.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.
Consent for sexual intercourse is vitiated by misconception of fact, but mutual consent in a relationship does not constitute rape without evidence of malicious intent.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's dishonest inducement of the victim to believe in false promises of marriage constituted the offence of cheating under Section 41....
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
