Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Mukesh Kumar Yadav against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dated 23.04.2026, which reversed his acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and convicted him under Sections 376 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant and the victim (referred to as VL) were in a relationship where the appellant promised to marry her. Based on this promise, the victim consented to sexual intercourse. Subsequently, the victim became pregnant, and the appellant persuaded her to consume pills to terminate the pregnancy. The appellant later refused to marry her. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court, on appeals by the State and the victim, found him guilty. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the correctness of the High Court's judgment. The key legal issue was whether the victim's consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellant's promise to marry was false from the beginning, and thus the consent was not valid under Section 375 IPC. The court also upheld the conviction under Section 312 IPC for abetment of miscarriage. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Consent - Section 375 IPC - Consent given on a false promise of marriage, known to be false from the beginning, is not valid consent and amounts to rape - The court held that the victim's consent was procured on a misconception of fact that the appellant intended to marry her, which he never intended - Held that such consent does not excuse the accused from the offence of rape (Paras 5-108). B) Criminal Law - Abetment of Miscarriage - Section 312 IPC - Abetment to cause miscarriage - The appellant persuaded the victim to consume pills to terminate her pregnancy, knowing his promise to marry was false - Held that this constitutes abetment of miscarriage under Section 312 IPC (Paras 5-108).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent given by the victim for sexual intercourse was vitiated by a false promise of marriage, and whether the appellant abetted the termination of pregnancy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.
Law Points
- Consent based on false promise of marriage is not consent under Section 375 IPC
- Abetment of miscarriage under Section 312 IPC
- Appellate court's power to reverse acquittal when findings are perverse
