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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...