PRADEEP KUMAR@ PRADEEP KUMAR VERMA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

PRADEEP KUMAR@ PRADEEP KUMAR VERMA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 IPC. However, if at the inception the accused had no intention to marry and used the promise as a hoax to obtain consent for sexual intercourse, consent would be vitiated. Prima facie, Sections 376 and 406 IPC do not apply; High Court did not consider submissions in detail, so matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Parties
Appellant: Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma; Respondent No.1: State of Bihar; Respondent No.2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order Dismissing Application Against Framing of Charges
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Promise to Marry, Misconception of Fact, Criminal Breach of Trust, Framing of Charges
Criminal Law Rape Consent Promise to Marry Misconception of Fact Criminal Breach of Trust Framing of Charges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent No.1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order Dismissing Application Against Framing of Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether promise to marry can vitiate consent for sexual intercourse under Section 375 IPC?
  2. 2 Whether Section 406 IPC applies in absence of entrustment of property?
  3. 3 Whether framing of charges under Sections 376 and 406 IPC was justified given facts alleged?

Ratio Decidendi

Promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 IPC. However, if at the inception the accused had no intention to marry and used the promise as a hoax to obtain consent for sexual intercourse, consent would be vitiated. Prima facie, Sections 376 and 406 IPC do not apply; High Court did not consider submissions in detail, so matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside
  • Matter remitted to High Court for detailed consideration of submissions