Knowing that the chance of getting married was remote, no prudent woman would consent to sexual relations under the guise of misconception of fact, the Court said.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently expressed the view that no sensible woman would spend two years with a man solely based on a promise of marriage, especially when she knows the likelihood of marriage is slim.
Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy articulated these thoughts while dismissing a rape case against a man accused of engaging in sexual relations with the complainant under the false pretense of marriage. The court asserted that, given the apparent unlikelihood of marriage and the defendant’s avoidance of it, no prudent woman would acquiesce due to a misunderstanding of the facts. Such a woman would reasonably draw the conclusion that the accused’s marriage promise was insincere from the outset.
The court considered the complainant to be highly educated and, therefore, aware of presumptions and their implications. To establish the crime of rape, it must be determined if consent was obtained under a misapprehension of fact. Upon examining the evidence, the court found that the First Information Report (FIR) itself revealed that the complainant recognized the impossibility of their marriage due to differences in caste.
The court pointed out that the complainant had willingly accompanied the accused to secluded locations and hotel rooms, behavior typical of couples deeply in love, regardless of potential consequences. It further emphasized that over time, promises could lose their significance, especially as emotions and passion subside.
Given this context, the court deemed it extremely challenging to conclude that the complainant had consented because of the accused’s misrepresentation of facts. It noted that the complainant’s consent could have stemmed from various reasons, and clarified that misapprehensions of facts should be applicable only in the “fourthly” and “fifthly” situations defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It emphasized that the concept of consent under a misapprehension of fact, as addressed in Section 90 of the IPC, did not apply in this case.
Consequently, the court dismissed the rape charge against the defendant, while permitting the police to investigate other allegations against him.
