Supreme Court’s Judgement on False Rape Cases

Hello Viewers ,
consensual sex is sex between two consenting adults.
दो वयस्कों के बीच सहमति से किया गया सेक्स है।
consensual sex between a couple could not be categorised as rape if the man failed to keep his promise of marriage to the woman.
यदि पुरुष महिला से शादी का अपना वादा निभाने में विफल रहता है, तो एक जोड़े के बीच सहमति से यौन संबंध को बलात्कार के रूप में वर्गीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता है।
There is a clear distinction between ‘rape’ and ‘consensual sex’, and that the Court is required to carefully examine as to whether the accused had with malafide motives made false promise of marriage or it was a mere breach of promise by the accused.
'बलात्कार' और 'सहमति से यौन संबंध' के बीच एक स्पष्ट अंतर है, और यह कि न्यायालय को सावधानीपूर्वक जांच करने की आवश्यकता है कि क्या अभियुक्त ने दुर्भावनापूर्ण उद्देश्यों से शादी का झूठा वादा किया था या यह अभियुक्त द्वारा किए गए वादे का उल्लंघन था।
The basic principles of criminal jurisprudence warrant that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence, however, considering the ethos and culture of the Indian Society, and considering the rising graph of the commission of the social crime - ‘Rape’, the courts have been permitted to raise a legal presumption as contained in Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. As per Section 114A, a presumption could be raised as to the absence of consent in certain cases pertaining to Rape. As per the said provision, if sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question arises as to whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped, and if she states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257 OF 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 8586 OF 2017)
NAIM AHAMED .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ......RESPONDENT
The following facts have emerged: -
I. Prosecutrix was a married woman having three children.
II. Accused was staying in a tenanted premises situated in front of the house of the prosecutrix.
III. Though initially hesitant, the prosecutrix developed liking for the accused, and both started having sexual relationship with each other.
IV. The prosecutrix delivered a male child on 28/10/2011 from the loin of the accused.
V. The prosecutrix went to the native place of the accused in 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children.
VI. The prosecutrix still continued to live with the accused in separate premises.
VII. The prosecutrix and her husband took divorce by mutual consent in 2014 and thereafter prosecutrix permanently left her three children with her husband.
VIII. The prosecutrix lodged the complaint on 21 st March, 2015 alleging that she had consented for sexual relationship with the accused as the accused had promised her to marry and subsequently did not marry.
ये तथ्य सामने आए:
i) अभियोजिका एक विवाहित महिला थी जिसके तीन बच्चे थे।
(ii) अभियुक्त अभियोजिका के घर के सामने स्थित किराए के परिसर में रह रहा था।
(iii) शुरू में हिचकिचाहट के बावजूद, अभियोजिका को अभियुक्त से प्यार हो गया और दोनों शुरू हो गए
आपस में यौन संबंध बनाना।
(iv) अभियोजिका ने 28/10/2011 को अभियुक्त के गर्भ से एक पुत्र को जन्म दिया।
(v) अभियोजिका 2012 में अभियुक्त के पैतृक स्थान पर गई और उसे पता चला कि वह एक
विवाहित पुरुष जिसके बच्चे हों।
(vi) अभियोजिका अभी भी अलग-अलग परिसरों में आरोपी के साथ रहती थी।
(vii) पीड़िता और उसके पति ने 2014 में और उसके बाद आपसी सहमति से तलाक ले लिया
अभियोजिका ने अपने तीन बच्चों को हमेशा के लिए अपने पति के पास छोड़ दिया।
(viii) अभियोजिका ने 21 मार्च, 2015 को यह आरोप लगाते हुए शिकायत दर्ज कराई कि उसने इसके लिए सहमति दी थी। आरोपी के साथ यौन संबंध बनाए क्योंकि आरोपी ने उससे शादी करने का वादा किया था और बाद में शादी नहीं किया।
The Supreme Court cited the following judgments to decide the matter:-
1. Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46.
2. Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra)
#ipc #section375 #supremecourtjudgements#supremecourtjudgements
#youtubechannel #youtube #youtuber #youtubers #subscribe #youtubevideos #sub #youtubevideo #like #instagram #follow #video
3. Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
4. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra)
There is a difference between making a false promise by the accused and breach of promise. In case of false promise, the accused would not have had any intention to marry the prosecutrix from the beginning and had made a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust.

[@manishmishra9927]

very well explained.

[@simmishukla3196]

Very well explained thanks for such informative video......🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@manishmishra9927]

very well explained.