Back
Hiding Existing Marriage to Induce Sex on of Marriage Constitutes Rape:
In a significant ruling regarding the legal boundaries of , the has affirmed that a man who hides his existing marriage to induce a woman into a sexual relationship through false promises of wedlock commits rape, as the consent obtained is fundamentally .
Presiding over a , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava underscored a critical legal distinction between a "" and a "" of marriage, noting that the latter constitutes a "" under (IPC).
The Case Background The appellant, Ramesh Sahu, was initially convicted by the for offences under . The victim, a widow, alleged that the appellant assaulted her in a forest in and subsequently established a sexual relationship after promising to marry her. Over several years, the accused allegedly resided with the victim and induced her into physical intimacy through persistent, albeit deceitful, assurances of marriage. When the appellant eventually refused to marry her, the filed an FIR alleging rape and forced termination of pregnancies.
Legal Analysis: The Anatomy of Consent The Court’s analysis hinged on whether the sexual relationship was truly consensual. Counsel for the appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a result of a strained relationship. However, the Court rejected this, emphasizing that the appellant’s concealment of his prior marriage (solemnized in ) proved that his intention was deceitful from the very inception.
Citing the ’s decision in
, the
emphasized that consent obtained via a "premeditated"
—made with no intention of fulfillment—cannot be considered valid.
"In spite of being a married person, the appellant seduced the victim to solemnize marriage with her... He has also concealed the
of his being already married... it was
of marriage which was never intended to be fulfilled,"
the Court noted.
Key Observations The judgment clarifies the application of Section 90 IPC in cases of sexual offences:
-
On Deceitful Intent:
"Thus, from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the consent of the for indulgence in with a person on of marriage would amount to ' ' within the meaning of Section 90, only if it is shown by the prosecution that from the very beginning the accused had no intention to perform marriage."
-
On the Nature of Promise:
"There is a difference between giving a and committing by the accused."
-
On Justification for Consent:
"It cannot be said that there was any of marriage due to reason of any exceptional hardship rather it was of marriage which was never intended to be fulfilled vitiating the consent of ."
The Verdict: A Partial Set Aside While the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376 (rape) for the systematic deception used to facilitate sexual exploitation, it set aside the conviction under Section 313 (causing miscarriage without consent). The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence, such as medical records or testimonies from the specific doctors involved, to prove the appellant had forcibly caused the termination of the victim’s pregnancies.
The appellant, who was on bail, has been directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two months to undergo the sentence awarded for the rape conviction. The ruling serves as a stern reminder that the institution of marriage cannot be used as a tool to manipulate consent, and that individuals who conceal material facts to exploit partners will face legal accountability under the law of the land.
