Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court further observed that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.
The Court is conscious of the fact that though the pregnancy of the minor rape victim is of 24 weeks and 05 days, the risk associated with the termination of pregnancy is not higher than the risk of delivery at full term of pregnancy at the tender age of 16.
“Each promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such a relationship.”
Kerala High Court said that there was no undue delay in filing the FIR, as the relationship was predicated on the promise of marriage
A quick review of reported cases this week from various High Courts across the country
“The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given”- Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608
‘In a young age when relationship develops, they naturally carry impression that they will get married. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her.”
“The Court below lost sight of the rudimentary principle governing rape and convicted the convict on the strength of the gospel that Indian women do not lie in such matters, which cannot be sustained, as the facts surrounding each and every case and the evidence available ought to form the basis of arriving at a finding, and the surrounding scenario cannot be the basis to render a finding.”
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Karnataka High Court, wherein the Court allowed the petition
Supreme Court took note of the evident consent of the complainant as well as her parents and daughter, who were living in the same house.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“The british concept of changing partner in every season cannot be considered to be hallmark of a stable and healthy society. The security and stability which the institution of marriage provides to an individual’s life cannot be expected from live-in-relationship.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that held that in the present circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of IPC will amount to abuse of process of law.
Allahabad High Court directed the Head of Astrology Department, Lucknow University to submit the report in a sealed cover within three weeks.
Bombay High Court commented that refusal to discharge the accused merely with an observation that intercourse was forcible at some time cannot be said to be a justified exercise of power.
Allahabad High Court said that the purpose is not to persecute the accused, nor is it to let him off because his relations with the complainant has taken a happier turn, as an offence of rape or one under POCSO is an offence against the society.
While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
Kerala High Court: Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., addressed a matter wherein a married woman voluntarily had sex with her former lover. In
Delhi High Court: Noting that the Trial Court failed to perform its duty and rendered a mechanical order, Subramonium Prasad, J., set