Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by, The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case details and trial proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant arguments on consensual relationship (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. supreme court precedents on consent (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court findings on consensual nature (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. appeal allowed, conviction set aside (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, in S.C.No.223 of 2020, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant/PW1 is as follows:-
2.1. On 16.09.2019, the victim/second daughter of the de facto complainant (PW2), who got separated from her husband before the village panchayat, was found lying unconscious after having consumed pesticide. Subsequently, she was taken to the Government General Hospital, Thirukovilur.
2.2 Upon enquiry, after regaining senses, she stated that she became acquainted with the appellant/A1, who, on the promise of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, took her earnings and thereafter, reneged.
2.3. On account
Prolonged consensual relationship turning sour does not constitute rape or cheating under Sections 376/417 IPC.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
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.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
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.
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.
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
