UDAY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

UDAY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Consent given by prosecutrix was voluntary, conscious, and not under misconception of fact arising from false promise of marriage; no evidence that accused knew prosecutrix consented solely based on promise; Section 90 IPC not attracted.

Parties
Appellant: Uday; Respondent: State of Karnataka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Conviction by High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Misconception of Fact
Criminal Law Rape Consent Misconception of Fact

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uday

Appellant

State of Karnataka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Appeal From Conviction by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consent for sexual intercourse obtained on promise to marry amounts to consent under misconception of fact as per IPC
  2. 2 Whether the accused is guilty of rape under Section 376 IPC when prosecutrix consented

Ratio Decidendi

Consent given by prosecutrix was voluntary, conscious, and not under misconception of fact arising from false promise of marriage; no evidence that accused knew prosecutrix consented solely based on promise; Section 90 IPC not attracted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • The impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC is set aside.
  • No further order for release as appellant was granted exemption from surrendering.