Bombay High Court Rules That False Promise to Marry with Intent to Deceive Vitiates Consent

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that if a man, from the outset, makes a promise of marriage with the intention to deceive a woman into engaging in sexual relations, such consent is vitiated due to 'misconception of fact'. This judgment underscores the legal principle that consent obtained through fraudulent means is not valid in the eyes of the law.

The case in question involved an appeal by Rupchand Shende, who was convicted under charges of rape and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Special POCSO Court in Bhandara district had sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment on September 9, 2022. Shende challenged this conviction, asserting that the sexual relationship was consensual and based on mutual affection.

According to the prosecution, the victim, a minor working at a fruit juice center, was approached by Shende, who frequented the establishment. He persistently sought her contact information, and upon obtaining it, initiated regular communication. Despite objections from the victim's mother, the interactions continued. On October 7, 2018, Shende allegedly took the victim to a secluded location under the pretense of marriage and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, he continued to exploit her sexually, reiterating his promise to marry her. However, when the victim became pregnant and insisted on marriage, Shende refused, leading to the filing of the First Information Report (FIR).

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, presiding over the appeal, emphasized that the accused's promise of marriage was not bona fide from the beginning. The court observed that Shende's actions were calculated to mislead the victim into believing in a false promise of marriage, thereby obtaining her consent for sexual relations under a misconception of fact. The judgment stated, "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive a girl to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates the girl's 'consent.'"

The court further noted that since the victim was below sixteen years of age, her consent was immaterial, as per statutory provisions. Justice Joshi-Phalke remarked, "It is not merely a case of breach of promise but a case where, to seduce, a false promise was made, and the victim was subjected to sexual assault under a misconception of fact."

This ruling aligns with established legal precedents distinguishing between a mere breach of promise and a false promise made with the intent to deceive. The Supreme Court, in previous judgments, has clarified that if a promise to marry is made without any intention of fulfillment and solely to lure a woman into a sexual relationship, such consent is obtained under a misconception of fact and is thus invalid.

The Bombay High Court's decision serves as a stern reminder that deceitful inducements leading to sexual exploitation are punishable under law. It reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting individuals, especially minors, from being victimized through fraudulent promises and emphasizes that consent must be informed, voluntary, and free from any form of deception.