SUMEET GOEL
Sanjay Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the accused challenging the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, Haryana whereby, he has been arraigned, for facing trial under Sections 323/376(2)(n)/406/506 of IPC.
2. The relevant part of the report filed by the police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., 1973), as spelt out in the petition, reads as follows:-
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashtra
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar: 2005(1) SCC 88
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana: 2013(7) SCC 675
Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 327
Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey 2022 (12) SCC 657=2022 INSC 750
Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) = 2023 INSC 85
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra : AIR 2019 SC 4010
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI: (2010) 9 SCC 368
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
State of M.P. v. S.B. Johri: AIR 2000 SC 665
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa etc.: (1996) 4 SCC 659
Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
Consent obtained under a false promise to marry does not constitute valid consent for sexual acts; the court must evaluate the intention behind the promise and the circumstances surrounding the conse....
Consent in sexual relationships requires active understanding and cannot be deemed vitiated solely by false promises of marriage unless proven that such promises were made in bad faith.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
Consent under Section 375 IPC can be vitiated by a false promise of marriage only if it is proven that such promise was made without any intention to fulfill it at the time of the promise.
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.
The validity of consent in cases involving a false promise to marry and the application of Section 90 of IPC to determine the impact of a false promise on consent.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for rape; a distinction exists between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.