Summary
The Supreme Court maintained a rape conviction where the prosecution proved that the accused never intended to honour his promise of marriage and obtained the woman’s consent through that false assurance. A promise false from inception differs from an honest promise subsequently frustrated or a mere breach. Subsequent marriages of the accused and the woman did not erase the offence. The Court nevertheless reduced rigorous imprisonment from ten to seven years, the minimum applicable when the offence occurred.
Issues
- When a false promise of marriage vitiates consent.
- Whether the evidence established deception from inception.
- Whether subsequent marriages affected conviction or sentence.
Provisions considered
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent under a misconception of fact does not excuse the act where the actor knows or has reason to believe that the misconception induced it. Applied to the deliberately false marriage assurance. (¶¶ 10.3, 12–14)
Held
- The prosecution must establish that the promise was false from inception and induced consent. Mere subsequent failure to marry, unforeseen obstacles, or a relationship entered voluntarily for other reasons must be distinguished. (¶¶ 10.1–10.6, 12)
- The evidence, including the existing negotiations for another marriage, repeated assurances and conduct surrounding the proposed ceremonies, established that the accused never intended to marry the woman. Her initial refusal gave way because of his false promise. (¶ 13–14)
- The parties’ subsequent marriages did not remove criminal liability. Conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, the statutory minimum at the relevant time. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed only as to sentence: conviction under Section 376 IPC maintained; ten years’ rigorous imprisonment reduced to seven years.