Skip to main content

Obtaining consent by deceit cannot be legitimate defence: SC

"Obtaining consent by exercising deceit cannot be legitimate defence to exculpate an accused", the Supreme Court today said while upholding the conviction of a man, who repeatedly had sexual intercourse with a girl on the false promise of marriage.

The apex court concurred with the findings of the Madras High Court and the trial court which had convicted the man by holding him guilty of raping the girl who was a major.

The court noted that the accused at each time before having sexual intercourse "swore" that he would marry her but he later refused to tie the knot with her.

"We confirm the concurrent determination of the courts below, that accused-appellant Karthick committed deceit with the prosecutrix by promising to marry her. On the strength of the said deception, in the first instance persuaded her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, and thereafter, repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced on behalf of accused-appellant Karthick, that sexual intercourse by him with the prosecutrix was consensual. Obtaining consent by exercising deceit, cannot be legitimate defence to exculpate an accused," a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Jagdish Singh Khehar said.

The accused had approached the apex court challenging the order of the high court, which had dismissed his plea against the trial court's order holding him guilty of rape.
According to the prosecution, the accused, a resident of Achampatti in Virudhunagar district of Tamil Nadu, was a neighbour of the victim who had complained that he used to tease her and also used to ask her to marry him.

The victim had said that one day when she was alone, he entered her house and forced her for physical relationship after which he promised that he would marry her. Believing the promise, she did not reveal about the incident to anyone and they indulged in consensual physical relationship as Karthick had promised that he would marry her.

In October 2003, when the woman requested him to marry her, he refused after which she informed her family members, who tried to sort out the matter through the village elders following which a panchayat was held. The panchayat tried to amicably solve the issue but the accused refused to marry her after which the villagers advised the girl to make a complaint to the police.

Article referred: http://news.oneindia.in/2013/07/01/obtaining-consent-deceit-cannot-be-legitimate-defence-1249712.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even