Cases

● The Karnataka High Court has observed that false promise of marriage must be of
immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the
sexual act, to attract an offence of rape.

In our case, it's clear that Somya was hesitant for a live in relationship due to physical intimacy
that living together would lead to. She had past experience where guys did not want to marry
her after physical intimacy was established.
She did not want to get physically intimate with a guy who did not care about her feelings and
did not want to marry her.
She agreed for a live in only when Abhinav assured her of marriage. Therefore, there was a
direct nexus between the false promises of marriage and Sonya's decision to engage in
sexual/physical act.

● Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh. ( Citation: LL 2021 SC 137)

Concerning Section 375 of the IPC, it is essential that there is a reasoned deliberation on the
act of sexual intercourse between the parties. In order to prove that the consent which was
obtained was vitiated and was a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the IPC, two
conditions must be satisfied:

1. The promise should be false since the beginning

When the promise to marry was made, it should have been devoid of any intention of complying
with it and it should be mala fide i.e. in bad faith. It should have been a false promise to marry.

2. Consent must be an immediate effect of the false promise

The false promise made should be the immediate reason following which the prosecutrix
consented to the act.

The Supreme Court made a distinction between a ‘ false promise’ and a ‘breach of promise’ and
laid down that not every failed promise to marry amounts to rape. The intention of the person
making such a promise would be taken into consideration.

In our case, it can be argued that the promise was false from its very beginning as Abhinav just
assured her with marriage when she was hesitant to engage in physical intimacy. His acts were
all consistent with the fact that the promise was false. He made a fake marriage certificate just
to get the flat in Nangloi and didn't even tell Somya about it. If he had actually wanted to marry
her he would have discussed it with Somya. And maybe even married her in a court marriage.

● State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad (citation: AIR 2014 SC 384)

If consent is given by the prosecutrix under a misconception of fact, it is vitiated (section 90,
IPC)

In our case, Abhinav assured Somya of marriage and started a live-in relationship with her and
whenever she pursued the subject of marriage he made excuses of financial and emotional
stability. However it can be seen that he was not in any crunch of money as he himself bought a
3 BHk flat in Punjabi Bagh west which is a very posh area and the circle rate is also very high. A
3 bhk flat easily costs more than 1 crore. He took a loan but he also used his earnings and
some passive sources but he didn't mention what those passive sources were.
It can be concluded that he was financially very stable and just used it as an excuse not to
marry her. He even said in his statement that he's an only son and later he said that he was
funding his brother's education.

it is evident that Abhinav never intended to marry her and procured her consent only for the
reason of having sexual relationship with her.