In Brief
The appellant was convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC after he had sexual intercourse with the victim (a B. Pharmacy student) on a false promise of marriage, while knowing he was already engaged to another woman. The victim consented only based on his assurance of marriage. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that consent obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation of marital intent constitutes 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 IPC and is therefore invalid. The Court held this was rape, not mere breach of promise, distinguishing between genuine but failed promises and intentional deception from the outset. However, the Court reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. The appeal was partly allowed on sentencing only."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.