Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Anurag Soni, the original accused, against his conviction under Section 376(1) IPC for rape based on a false promise of marriage. The prosecution case was that the accused, a junior doctor, had a love affair with the prosecutrix since 2009 and promised to marry her. On 29-30 April 2013, he called her to his residence and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, despite her initial refusal. Later, he married another woman, Priyanka Soni, on 10 June 2013, leading to the FIR on 21 June 2013. The trial court convicted him, holding that consent was obtained on a misconception of fact, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the conviction. The court analyzed the distinction between a false promise of marriage made with no intention to marry from the inception (which vitiates consent under Section 90 IPC) and a mere breach of promise (which does not amount to rape). Relying on precedents like Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Uday v. State of Karnataka, the court held that the prosecutrix, being an educated adult, was aware of the relationship and the accused's pre-existing engagement. The evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry her at the time of the act. The court emphasized that a subsequent refusal to marry does not retroactively make the initial consent invalid. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent on Misconception of Fact - Section 375, 376, 90 IPC - The court examined whether sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage constitutes rape. Held that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 IPC, the promise must be false from the inception and the accused must have had no intention to marry at the time of making the promise. A mere breach of promise subsequently does not amount to rape. (Paras 6-10) B) Evidence - Presumption under Section 114A Evidence Act - Section 114A Evidence Act, 1872 - The presumption that the woman did not consent in certain rape cases is not applicable where the issue is consent on misconception of fact. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove absence of consent. (Para 7) C) Criminal Law - Promise to Marry - Intention - The court distinguished between a false promise made with no intention to marry and a promise broken later. In the present case, the accused had a pre-existing engagement with another woman, indicating lack of intention to marry the prosecutrix from the beginning. However, the court found that the prosecutrix was aware of the relationship and continued voluntarily, and the evidence did not establish that the accused had no intention to marry at the time of the act. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent given by the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage amounts to consent on misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, thereby constituting rape under Section 375 IPC, or whether it is a mere breach of promise not amounting to rape.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Law Points
- Consent on misconception of fact
- False promise of marriage
- Section 375 IPC
- Section 90 IPC
- Section 114A Evidence Act
- Breach of promise vs. Rape
