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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...