Skip to main content

False promise on marriage

                               SHORT NOTE ON LEGAL OPINION 

     Topic- Orissa High Court Ruling: sex on false promise of marriage is not rape

.


Background:

Orissa High Court in the case of G. Achyut Kumar V. State of Orissa granted bail as per the grounds and opined that sex on false promise of marriage is not rape. 

As per the section 375 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 defines rape as “sexual intercourse with a women against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she is intoxicated or duped or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age”. 

As per Orissa High Court “sex on false promise of marriage” is not stated in the section 375 read with section 7 of IPC. 

The accused will be charged for the offence of “Fraud” but not for “Rape” relying upon the landmark case of Queen V. Clarence (1888)

Legal Issue: 

Whether a rape case can be filed against a man for having sex with a women not disclosing his martial status and if he had not promised her to marry. 


Judgements:

In the case of Yadla Srinivas Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) Supreme Court upheld the Ruling of High court and sentenced rigorous punishment. Supreme Court Held that since beginning the promise was false and the onus to prove that women is voluntarily entered into the relationship is over the men. Supreme Court refer Section 90 of IPC stated that consent should be given without misconception of fact. 

In the case of Pradeep Kumar V. State of Bihar (2007)  Supreme Court stated that there is no hard and fast rule to determine promise of marriage is misconception of fact. It depend on case to case.

In the case of Deepak Gulati V State of Haryana (2013) Supreme court overrule the judgment of High Court and acquitted the accused stated that promise is not misconception of fact as inability to marriage is beyond the control. 

In the case of state of U.P. V. Nashad (2014) Supreme Court overrule the High court judgement and sentenced life imprisonment to the accused, stated that the act of escaping from the village to avoid marriage with the women with who he engage in illicit sexual relationship on the promise to marry her implied that his promise to marry is false since beginning and the accused is liable for the offence of rape. 

In the resent Supreme court Judgement bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao & MR Shah reaffirmed that when consent of the women for sexual intercourse is obtained based on promise to marry & it can be proved that the accused did not have any intention to marry the women. The accused will be guilty of rape under section 375 of IPC.


Conclusion:

Sexual intercourse is not amounts to rape when the consent is given voluntarily without misconception of facts. Sexual intercourse with a women with promise to marry her and merry another women will not erase the liability of committed crime. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct