In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court delved into the intricate legal nuances of consent obtained under a promise of marriage, determining that whether such consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact must be assessed during trial. The court's decision to not quash a rape case filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) emphasizes the importance of evaluating the veracity of allegations in a detailed trial process.
Case Background
The case involves allegations against the petitioner, who purportedly engaged in sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant under the promise of marriage. The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings, asserting that no prima facie case of rape was made out as the sexual relations were not predicated on a promise of marriage.
Court's Observations and Analysis
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case, highlighted the necessity of a trial to determine the truthfulness of the allegations. The court analyzed the facts presented in the First Information Report (FIR), noting that the complainant had a child from a previous relationship and had cohabited with another man without legal marriage. The petitioner allegedly initiated a relationship with the complainant under the promise of marriage after her previous partner abandoned her.
Allegations of Misconduct
The complainant accused the petitioner of failing to provide accurate details in hospital records during the birth of her child, intentionally listing another man's name as the father. Furthermore, the petitioner was accused of repeatedly promising marriage but ultimately retracting, thereby committing the offense of rape under the false promise of marriage.
Legal Precedents
The court referred to several landmark judgments, including Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005), Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P (2006), and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013). These cases elucidate the distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise of marriage that vitiates consent.
Supreme Court Decisions on Consent
The court further examined Supreme Court rulings that differentiate between consensual sexual relationships and those vitiated by misconceptions of fact. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court clarified that not every breach of promise constitutes rape. However, in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, it was held that sex obtained through a false promise of marriage is rape.
Vitiation of Consent
Justice Badharudeen summarized that consent is invalidated if obtained through fear of injury or a misconception of fact. If prima facie evidence suggests that the prosecutrix consented to sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage, such consent is vitiated, constituting rape. Conversely, if the relationship is purely consensual without any element of deceit, it does not amount to rape.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's decision underscores the complexity of cases involving consent obtained under promises of marriage. By refusing to quash the proceedings, the court has affirmed the necessity of a thorough trial to establish the facts and ensure justice. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in protecting individuals from being exploited under false pretenses while upholding the integrity of consensual relationships.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.