LexKARTHI @ KARTHICK versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 SC.R. 1012 KARTHI @ KARTHICK v STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2008) JULY 1. 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 and 417 - Conviction under - Of accused-appellant for deceitfully procuring consent of C PW1 for sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage - Justification - Held: Justified - Appellant committed deceit with PW1 by promising to marry her - In the first instance, he had forcible sexual relationship with PW1 and then told her not to reveal the incident to anyone by assuring her, that he D would marry her - Subsequent acts of repeated sexual intercourse by appellant with PW1, were also actions of actively cheating her by giving her the impression that he would marry her - Obtaining consent by exercising deceit, cannot be legitimate defence to exculpate an accused - As E long as commitment of marriage subsisted, relationship between the parties could not be described as constituting the offence of rape uls.376 - Things changed when appellant declined to marry the prosecutrix - After the promised alliance was declined, PW1 without any delay disclosed the entire F episode to her immediate family - Without any further delay, the brother and father of PW1 approached the village elders - The village elders immediately summoned the appellant by holding a panchayat and made all efforts to settle the issue amicably but the appellant declined to marry PW1 - G Thereafter, without any further delay, PW1 reported the matter to the police - No doubt in prosecution version, merely on account of delay in the registration of the FIR. Allegation of rape was made against the accused- appellant on the basis that he committed deceit with H 1012 KAkTHI @ KARTH I CK v. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF 1013 POLICE, TAMIL NADU PW1; in the first instance he had forcible sexual A intercourse with her after gagging her mouth with his right hand, when she was all alone in her house, and then told her not to reveal the incident to anyone by assuring her, that he would marry her and on the strength of the very said deception of promising to marry her, had B repeated sexual intercourse with PW1 for over 6 months. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 417 IPC. The conviction was affirmed by the appellate Court and the Revisional Court, and therefore the present appeal. C Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Three sets of statements, the first comprising of the prosecutrix (PW1), her brother (PW2) and her father (PW4), read with the statements of the o elders of the village, namely PWs5, 6, 7 and 8, when examined in conjunction with the statements of two friends of appellant, PWs9 and 10, leave no room for any doubt that the appellant in the first instance had unwilling sexual relationship with PW1. Even though she had protested and repulsed his physical advances by telling him that this would be possible only after their marriage. Yet, he forced himself on her, after gagging her mouth with his right hand. After having had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, when she was all alone in her house, E F h.e told her not to reveal the incident to anyone by assuring her, that he would marry her. [Para 12) [1020-F- H; 1021-A-B] 1.2. PW1 has confirmed in her deposition, that at the time of the first sexual intercourse with her at her house, G the appellant had gagged her mouth with his right hand. He had promised to marry her, by placing his hand on her head, after having ravaged her. The subsequent acts of sexual intercourse, were actions of actively cheating her, by giving her the impression that he would marry her. H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 8 SC.R A The occurrence at the Murugan temple, is of significant importance. At the temple, for the first time the appellant told PW1, that he would not marry her, The appellant committed deceit with PW1 by promising to marry her. On the strength of the said deception, in the first instance B persuaded her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, and thereafter, repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that sexual intercourse by the appellant with PW1 was consensual. Obtaining consent c by exercising deceit, cannot be legitimate defence to exculpate an accused. [Para 14) (1024-B-G] 1.3. As long as commitmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.