Consent for sexual intercourse is vitiated under Section 90 IPC if obtained through a false promise of marriage made with no intention to fulfill it from the inception, distinguished from a breach of promise where the intention was initially genuine.

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 17.06.2026 Pronounced on 29/06/2026

1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2005 & 05.07.2005 respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, II, Gumla, in S.T. Case No. 125 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the above named appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376 & 313 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the prosecutrix was married with one Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Naik, in the year 1987-88 and after short span of two years of her marriage, her husband expired due to tuberculosis. The prosecutrix started living at her paternal home since after death of her husband. It is alleged that the prosecutrix developed friendship with Ramesh Sahu (appellant). On 10.12.1999, both have gone to forest area, where the appellant caught hold of her from behind and committed rape upon her extending threatening of life. It is alleged that subsequently, the appellant allured the prosecutrix to solemnize marriage and continued in sexual intercourse with her and often used to stay at her house in the night. It is further alleged that in the month of December 2002, the appellant got a rented house owned by Heeno Ghasi situated at Depatoli, Palkot, where the prosecutrix also resided with the appellant for 4-5 months. The prosecutrix became pregnant twice, but the appellant got the same terminated by assaulting her on abdomen. It is alleged that the prosecutrix persistently requested for solemnizing marriage with the appellant, but in one pretext or other he was postponing the same and ultimately flatly denied to perform marriage with her. Hence, the prosecutrix lodged F.I.R. before Palkot police station on 06.01.2004 from her parental home.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the prosecutrix, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 323, 376 & 313 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 125 of 2004.

4. The appellant denied from charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix on behalf of prosecution and several documentary evidence were also adduced.

6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication.

7. However, two witnesses have been examined by defence, namely D.W.-1, Tempo Ram and D.W.-2, Heeno Devi and no documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is consensual sexual intercourse with a grown up lady and previously married. The F.I.R. was lodged after 4-5 years of the alleged occurrence, when the relationship between the appellant a