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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...