In a 376 case (False promise of marriage) , where the victim has denied her medical examination.
The accused has accepted the fact that there was a physical relation between both of them in his bail application. in fact his lawyer didn't deny or made the victim accept that there was no physical relation during the cross examination of the prosecutrix. However during accused statement i.e. 313 the accused said there was no physical relation and the prosecutrix was threatening the prosecute to marry him. so they have brought completely a different version at this last stage. so can the bail acceptance be used during final arguments?
If yes then kindly forward me some judgements and material which can be shown in the court.
As per several judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts, False Promise of Marriage is not a case under Sec 376 of IPC, which is reserved for rape.
Even if there was a physical relationship, Sec 376 applies only if the s*x was forced and not consensual. If the physical relationship was consensual, then the accused is only guilt of false promise and cheating, not rape.
As per a recent judgement of the Bombay High Court, pre-marital s*x is common these days and all failed relationships are not to be prosecuted under Sec 376. A person cannot be forced into marriage using the threat of prosecution under Sec 376 of the IPC.