Supreme Court Of India’s Outlook On Consent And False Promises

Judgement Given On : 09/04/2019

The case of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on April 9, 2019, by the Supreme Court of India, delves into the intricate issue of consent in cases of sexual intercourse based on the promise of marriage.  In this case, the prosecutrix and the accused had known each other since 2009 and were engaged in a romantic relationship. The accused, at one-point, proposed marriage to the prosecutrix, a fact known to their families. The incident in question occurred when the accused, a Junior Doctor at a government hospital, invited the prosecutrix to his residence. During her stay, despite her initial refusal, the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with her, falsely assuring her of marriage. Subsequently, the accused refused to marry her and wed another woman instead.

The prosecutrix, after futile attempts to persuade the accused to fulfill his promise, filed a complaint alleging rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court found the accused guilty, emphasizing that the prosecutrix had consented under the misconception that the accused intended to marry her. The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the accused’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Observations and Decision

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, referred to several earlier judgments that provided clarity on the concept of consent, specifically within the context of Section 375 of the IPC and Section 90 of the IPC. These judgments emphasized the importance of distinguishing between genuine consent and consent obtained through deceit or false promises. Here are some key points from the Court’s observations:

Nature of Consent:

  • The Court highlighted that consent in sexual matters could be express or implied, coerced, or obtained through deceit. Consent should be a reasoned act, taken with a full understanding of its consequences.

Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Sex:

  • The Court stressed the distinction between rape and consensual sex. It stated that if an accused genuinely intended to marry the victim but was unable to do so due to unforeseen circumstances, it might not amount to rape. However, if the accused never had any intention to marry from the outset and falsely promised marriage to engage in sexual activity, such a consent could be deemed a “consent on misconception of fact.”

Misconception of Fact:

  • Section 90 of the IPC deals with consent obtained on a misconception of fact. In cases where the accused’s promise to marry is proven false from the beginning, and the victim consents based on this false promise, such consent is vitiated.

Presumption of Consent:

  • Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act was also cited. It establishes a presumption that if a woman alleges sexual intercourse under the promise of marriage, the court shall presume that she gave consent due to the misconception created by the accused.

Court’s Verdict

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Supreme Court concluded that the accused had never genuinely intended to marry the prosecutrix. The false promise of marriage was made from the outset to satisfy his lust. Therefore, the prosecutrix’s consent, given under the misconception of the accused’s intention to marry her, could not excuse the accused from the charge of rape under Section 375 of the IPC. The Court upheld the lower courts’ decision, finding the accused guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

This case underscores the significance of consent in sexual assault cases, particularly those involving false promises of marriage. It clarifies that consent obtained through deceitful promises is not valid consent, and individuals using such tactics to engage in sexual activity can be convicted of rape. The judgment emphasizes that rape is a grave offense against society, violating the victim’s dignity and human rights. Regardless of subsequent events, such as marriage, the perpetrator must face the consequences of the crime committed. This case serves as an important legal precedent in addressing and curbing such offenses in society.

It is imperative to recognize and protect the rights and dignity of victims while holding offenders accountable for their actions. This judgment by the Supreme Court is a significant step toward achieving that goal.