Checkout Forums Criminal Law Discourse RAPE CASE Reply To: RAPE CASE


Jayanti Rani Panda v. State of West Bengal and anr., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448, it has been observed that:

“The failure to keep the promise at a future uncertain date due to reasons not very clear on the evidence does not always amount to a misconception of fact at the inception of the act itself. In order to come within the meaning of misconception of fact, the fact must have an immediate relevance. The matter would have been different if the consent was obtained by creating a belief that they were already married. In such a case the consent could be said to result from a misconception of fact. But here the fact alleged is a promise Sessions Case to marry we do not know when. If a full grown girl consents to an act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact. Section 90 IPC cannot be called in aid in such a case unless the Court can be assured that from the very inception the accused never really intended to marry her.”

Similar observations have also been made in the judgments reported as Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & anr., AIR 2007 SC 3059; Jyotsana Kora v. The State of West Bengal and anr., Manu/WB/0364/2010; Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kuamr v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88; Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Naresh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, 2012 (7) LRC 156 (Del).