Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for XXX VS State of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Vishnu, S/o. Balakrishnan VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for DHRUVARAM MURLIDHAR SONAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
2019 1 Supreme 140 : The legal documents establish that a consensual physical relationship between parties, even if based on a promise of marriage that is later not fulfilled, does not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC if there is no evidence of a false promise made with the sole intention of seducing the victim. In cases where the prosecutrix voluntarily entered into a relationship based on the accused''''s promise of marriage, and there is no proof that the accused had no genuine intention to marry from the outset, the act is treated as a breach of promise rather than rape. The court emphasized that mere breach of a promise to marry, even if the relationship led to pregnancy, does not amount to an offence under Section 376 IPC. Furthermore, the court held that appreciation of evidence is not permissible under Section 482 CrPC, and the High Court can quash a complaint if the allegations do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken. In this context, if the victim''''s consent was given knowingly and voluntarily, and there is no evidence of psychological pressure, deceit, or mala fide intent, the sexual intercourse cannot be classified as rape.Checking relevance for Rajnish Singh @ Soni VS State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Aneesh V. N, S/o. Rajagopal VS State Of Kerala...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 804 : In cases where a married woman consents to sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage, the consent is vitiated if the promise is false and made without any intention to marry at the time of making it. Such consent, obtained under a misconception of fact, does not excuse the accused from the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC. However, if the promise of marriage is inherently impossible (e.g., the accused is already married), the misconception is not prima facie believable, and the relationship may be deemed consensual, thus no offence under Section 376 is made out. In such cases, the FIR may be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC if the relationship is found to be consensual and the promise of marriage is not credible. The key distinction lies in whether the promise was false from the inception (with no intention to marry) or merely a breach of a promise made in good faith. If the complainant continues the relationship for an extended period despite knowing the accused is married, this conduct may indicate that the consent was not vitiated by misconception of fact.Checking relevance for Sujith, S/o. Sivadasan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 790 : The legal documents establish that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage, without any intention to fulfill it, vitiates consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. In cases where a man makes a false promise of marriage with no intention to marry, and the woman consents to sexual intercourse based on that promise, such consent is considered vitiated by misconception of fact, and the act constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC. This principle was affirmed in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that if the promise to marry was false from the inception and made with no intention to fulfill it, the consent is not valid, and the accused can be convicted under Section 376 IPC. However, in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized that if the woman continues the relationship for years despite knowing the truth (e.g., that the accused is married), and even obtains a divorce, the court may find that the consent was not vitiated by misconception, and thus no rape occurred. Therefore, the key factor is whether the promise was false at the time it was made and whether the victim consented based on that false promise. In the scenario described, where the accused is a married man and the victim is his relative who became pregnant after being promised marriage, the legal outcome depends on whether the promise was made in bad faith with no intention to marry. If proven, this would constitute rape under Section 375 IPC.Checking relevance for SUNISH PILLAI S/O SOMAN PILLAI VS STATE OF KERALA...
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1169 : The legal documents establish that a consensual relationship does not amount to rape, and consent obtained under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 IPC. In cases where a married man makes a false promise of marriage to a relative, if it is proven that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception and used the promise to obtain consent for sexual intercourse, such consent is vitiated and the act may constitute rape under Section 375 IPC. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Naushad (2013) and Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. (2006) held that if the accused made a false promise to marry and had no intention to fulfill it, the consent obtained is not voluntary and falls under ''''without her consent'''' as defined in Section 375 IPC. However, if the relationship was consensual and the promise was not false from the beginning, the act does not amount to rape. The key factors are whether the promise was false at inception and whether the accused knew or had reason to believe the consent was given due to misconception.Checking relevance for Shahul Satheesh S/O. Satheesh VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar VS State Of Bihar...
2004 8 Supreme 266 : A promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to a ''''misconception of fact'''' under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, but a misrepresentation deliberately made by the accused with the intent to elicit the victim''''s assent to sexual intercourse—without any genuine intention or inclination to marry—will vitiate consent. If it is established that from the inception the accused had no real intention to marry and the promise was a mere hoax, the consent given based on that promise cannot exculpate the accused from the offence of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. In such cases, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the absence of consent, which can be inferred from attendant circumstances, prior conduct, or subsequent actions. However, if the evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made a false promise with fraudulent intent from the beginning, but instead shows a breach of promise due to external pressures (e.g., family opposition), it may amount to civil liability for breach of promise rather than criminal rape. In one case, despite acquittal in criminal proceedings, the court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the accused to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for causing pregnancy and emotional trauma, acknowledging reprehensible conduct even in the absence of criminal guilt.
