Amit Agarwal
Recently a single Judge Bench of Justice Dr S.K. Panigrahi, while granting bail to a man allegedly accused of committing rape on a false promise of marriage, has questioned the extension of Section 90 IPC to determine the validity of consent for sex on the false promise of marriage and stated that the law needs a serious relook.
“The intention of the law makers is clear on this issue. The rape laws should not be used to regulate intimate relationships, especially in cases where women have agency and are entering a relationship by choice. It is also equally disturbing, many of the complaints come from socially disadvantaged and poor segment of the society, rural areas, who are often lured into sex by men on false promises of marriage. The rape law often fails to capture their plight.”
“Nonetheless, it radiates from the above discussion that the law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. Hence, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of I.P.C. to determine the effect of a consent under Section 375 of I.P.C. deserves a serious relook.”
“The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous.”
Facts of the case
The petitioner in the instant case has filed the bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, on 12.01.20, took the victim from her house to Bhubaneswar with a promise to marry her. He maintained a physical relationship with the victim for several days and later abandoned her. After getting information from the victim, her father and brother proceeded to Bhubaneswar and rescued her. On 03.02.2020, when the father of the informant brought such fact to the notice of the father of the petitioner, the latter abused them and also threatened them with dire consequences in case such fact was reported to the local police.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the victim in the present case is a major and accompanied the present petitioner to Bhubaneswar according to her sweet will. Moreover, the victim has not stated the exact date of the alleged incident in the F.I.R. Therefore, considering the age of the victim and other surrounding circumstances, there is no legal bar to releasing the present petitioner on bail.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the medical examination report negatives the allegations of forceful sexual assault. So in view of such medical evidence, the liability of the present petitioner cannot be attracted in a case u/s 376(2)(n) of I.P.C.
On the contrary, the Learned Addl. PP raised an objection to the Petitioner’s bail application considering the nature of the allegations and offences committed by the Petitioner. He alleged that the Petitioner, with the assurance of marriage, took the victim with him and repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with the victim and took photos of her naked body. Thereafter, he absconded after abandoning the victim. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of this case establish a prima facie case u/s 376 of the I.P.C along with other offences against the Petitioner.
The Court observed that the allegations that the petitioner committed forced sexual assault on the victim, captured photos of her naked body and subsequently abandoned her seem to be cloudy without a proper trial The prima facie look of the medical report suggests that there was no forcible sexual intercourse though it is a matter of trial.
Further, the Court observed that from the facts, it could be seen that the victim was a major girl with a sound mind, and hence it cannot be said that a person induced her into a physical relationship under a false assurance of marriage.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Debasnan Das.
Case title: Santosh Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha
Case no.: BLAPL No. 2818 of 2021
Click Here To Download The Order