Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Sanjib Paul (37) – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent and Ms. V. Podder, learned counsel appearing for the de-facto respondent.
2. This criminal appeal under Section-374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.02.2021 and 12.02.2021, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 10 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections-376(1) of IPC and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer further RI for 1 year. Further convicted him under Section-417 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The factual background of the prosecution case is that one Bhabana Das, the complainant herein, complained that Sanjib Paul, the accused-person was in love affair
Consent given by a victim deeply in love cannot be established as obtained under misrepresentation; the promise of marriage does not negate voluntary consent.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is invalid, constituting cheating under Section 417 of IPC.
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....
A consensual relationship, even with a promise to marry, does not constitute rape if the other party is aware of the accused's marital status and consents willingly.
Consent obtained under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for the purposes of rape under IPC, emphasizing the need for credible witness testimony.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent; a prolonged consensual relationship negates claims of forceful sexual relations.
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
