False Promise To Marry: ‘Court Must Ensure That Women Are Not Misused, But Equally That Law Is Not Misused Against Men,’ Says Madras HC
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court set aside a conviction in a sexual harassment case, highlighting the necessity of balancing the protection of women with the prevention of misuse of laws against men. Justice M. Dhandapani emphasized that when a victim knows the accused is already married and a father, alleging that consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage is untenable.
Justice Dhandapani articulated that courts have a dual responsibility: ensuring women are not misused and ensuring that laws are not exploited against men. He noted that while courts should give weight to victims’ evidence, assuming women are generally not aggressors, they must also ensure that innocent men are not subjected to unfounded accusations.
Case Details
Facts:
The appellant, found guilty under Sections 375 and 376 read with Sections 90 and 417 of the IPC, was accused of luring the victim with a false promise of marriage and subsequently engaging in a forceful physical relationship. The victim claimed that when her family confronted the appellant’s family, they were met with abuse and threats.
The appellant argued that even if sexual intercourse occurred, it was consensual, and the victim’s consent was not obtained under a misconception of fact as required by Section 90 of the IPC.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhandapani highlighted that for Section 90 to be applicable, it must be shown that the consent was given under a misconception of fact, and that the person obtaining consent was aware or should have been aware of this misconception.
“It cannot be lost sight of that under the pretext of false promises, women are wrongly utilised in various acts, including the act of eternal submission to satisfy the carnal and physical desires of the opposite gender, even with their consent and in many cases against their wish, either by sugar coated words or by brute force. But not always, it is to be stated that, it is only the male who misuse the women folk, but in the legal conundrum, vicious persons belonging to the female folk, do misuse the law to their advantage and, therefore, in cases of such nature, the duty cast on the court is two-fold, not only to see that women are not misused but equally, the law is not misused against the male folk as well,” the court observed.
Key Findings:
Victim’s Awareness:
- The court noted from the victim’s deposition that she was aware of the appellant’s marital status and his fatherhood at the time of the incident.
- Given this awareness, the court concluded that the victim could not have consented under a misconception of marriage.
Glaring Discrepancies:
- The court pointed out discrepancies and contradictions in witness depositions, along with evidence interpolations, undermining the prosecution’s case.
- It was noted that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s act fell within the ambit of Section 90 or that the victim’s consent was given under any misconception of fact.
Promise of Marriage:
- The court ruled that the promise of marriage could not be misconstrued as the victim knew the appellant was already married, making such a promise implausible.
- The court observed, “The deposition of P.W.1 [victim] clearly reveals that before the date of the first sexual intercourse of A-1 with P.W.1, which is alleged to be on 1.12.2019, she was very well aware of the fact that A-1 was married.”
Consent:
The deposition of P.W.1 [victim] clearly reveals that before the date of the first sexual intercourse of A-1 with P.W.1, which is alleged to be on 1.12.2019, she was very well aware of the fact that A-1 was married. Therefore, such being the case, the misconception of promise of marriage would not be a possibility and the same could not be brought within misconception for P.W.1 to misconstrue the same, as A-1 was well married at the crucial point of time and, therefore, the promise of marriage could not reach its logical end. Therefore, there would have been no misconception on the part of P.W.1 with regard to the promise of marriage with A-1 as her marriage with A-1 cannot go through as A-1 was already a married man. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.1 could not have had any misconception with regard to the marriage,” the court observed
- The court further noted that there was no evidence showing the appellant knew or believed the victim’s consent was based on a misconception of marriage.
- Since the victim was a consenting party, the act did not fall under the definition of rape as per Section 375 IPC.
Judgment
The court criticized the lower court’s judgment and declared that the allegations against the appellant could not be sustained. It deemed the trial court’s conviction unjust and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the need for a balanced judicial approach in such sensitive cases.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v State
- Case No.: CRL. A. NO. 548 OF 2021
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Karthik
Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri, APP
