judgement
2024-07-10
Subject: Criminal Law - Sexual Offenses
The case involved a man accused of raping a woman with whom he had a consensual relationship for nearly two years. The woman had filed a first information report (FIR) alleging that the man had forced her to have sexual intercourse with him on the false promise of marriage.
The man's counsel argued that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and there was no criminal element involved. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the man had induced the woman to have a sexual relationship on the basis of a false promise of marriage, which would amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court carefully examined the statements of the woman recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the statements were contradictory and that the woman had voluntarily accompanied the man to a temple, where she had taken a bath under a waterfall. The court also noted that the crucial evidence, such as the photographs allegedly taken by the man and the affidavits and stamp papers, had not been seized by the police.
The court held that the physical relationship between the parties could not be said to be against the woman's will and without her consent. The court further observed that there was no "misconception of fact" that would vitiate the woman's consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court and quashed the proceedings in the rape case against the man. The court concluded that compelling the man to face a criminal trial on the available materials would be an abuse of the process of the court, as the result of the trial would be a foregone conclusion.
The judgment highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the collection of credible evidence in cases involving allegations of rape. It also underscores the need to carefully examine the issue of consent in such cases, particularly when the relationship between the parties was allegedly consensual.
#SupremeCourt #RapeCharges #ConsentualRelationship #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
Thane Court Rejects Application to Dismiss Defamation Suit Against Digvijaya Singh Over RSS Remarks: Order VII Rule 11 CPC
06 Feb 2026
Ministry Revises Fees for Central Government Counsel Effective 2026
06 Feb 2026
Temporary Re-Employment Not Entitling Ex-Serviceman to Civil Pension: Punjab & Haryana HC
06 Feb 2026
High Courts Confirm Only 10% of Death Sentences Since 2016
06 Feb 2026
Finality in IPS Cadre Allocation Cannot Be Reopened After Decades: Supreme Court
06 Feb 2026
Patna HC Quashes Cognizance Against Minister Sans Assault Allegations
06 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts to Inform Accused of Legal Aid Rights Before Witness Examination
07 Feb 2026
Law Ministry Reveals 73% Upper Caste Judges Since 2021
07 Feb 2026
Dwivedi: British Geopolitics Created Pakistan, Not Jinnah
07 Feb 2026
The consensual nature of a long-term relationship between parties negates accusations of rape, even when one party claims a false promise of marriage. Consent cannot be construed as given under misco....
The court established that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape without evidence of mala fide intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of alleged rape, the court must carefully consider the consensual nature of the physical relationship and ensure that the essential i....
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
Consent cannot be deemed vitiated merely due to a breakdown of a relationship without supporting evidence of fraud or coercion at the time of the act.
Consent for sexual relations cannot be deemed invalid unless there is clear evidence of misrepresentation regarding the promise of marriage.
Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Consent given under misconception of fact cannot be countenanced on mutually destructive plea given by a consenting victim.
Rape – Promise to marriage and subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.