LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Hemant Agarwal ( Mumbai : 9820174108)     23 July 2010

Rape - Sometimes YES, Somestimes NO : SC, HC

Dear All,

Strange are the ways of Justice.

Question :  Do we want such Justice,  which are at the whims of individual judges.

Indian Justice system,   has already become a JOKE around the world.

Please post your comments and opinions, over here.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal



Rape  - Sometimes YES,   Somestimes NO  : SC,  HC

Sex after false promise of marriage doesnt amount to rape
The following appeared in    "Times of India, dated 23-07-2010, page no. 14,  Mumbai Edition."


Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay HC has ruled that s*xual relationship with a woman after making false promises of marriage does not amount to rape, and acquitted a man from offences of raping a girl.

   A single-judge bench of Justice Ambadas Joshi observed that “s*xual relationship under a mistaken belief and hence a rape, as developed in the process of trial, does not stand in the eye of law”. It set aside the Yavatmal sessions court’s order that convicted Sandip Rathod (now 42) under Section 376 of raping a girl allegedly 16 years old in 1996. The HC also said the victim’s age has been proved to be around 18 when the incident occurred.

   Rathod, then 30 years old, was serving at a forest office near Mala’s (name changed) home. He developed s*xual relations with her and promised to marry her. Mala informed her parents when she became pregnant and Rathod was arrested on her parents’ complaint.

   Charged with repeatedly having s*xual relations with an “underaged’’ Mala on and before November 11, 1996, the sessions court sentenced him to 10-year rigorous imprisonment. Two years later, the accused, a Yavatmal resident, challenged the conviction in the high court. The bench cited the Supreme Court and other rulings while acquitting him.


Supreme Court

Oct 5, 2006: A bench of Justices A K Mathur and Altamas Kabir held that having s*xual intercourse with a girl with her consent obtained through fraud, coercion or on promise of marriage amounts to rape


Aug 29, 2007: A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain said a man having s*x with a girl after obtaining her consent on the promise of a marriage does not necessarily constitute rape even if he retracts on his pledge

High Court

February 1, 2010: The Delhi HC held that having s*x with a girl on the promise of marriage and later refusing to tie the knot on flimsy grounds amounts to rape


July 17, 2010: The Bombay high court upheld the acquittal of a man who was charged with having s*xual relations with a woman after making a false promise of marriage 


 21 Replies

ASHISH PATHAK (STUDENT)     23 July 2010

This is a trauma in our Indian society that there are different judgements  coming from the supreme court or the high courts regarding the same matter. It only signifies the lac of coordination and "plans for giving the judgement" between the judges. It not only gives a benefit to the accused but also plays an important role in sending a bad message to the society and thus raise the probability of "frequent rapes". In Saleha Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, it was held that " if the consent to intercourse was obtained falsely inducing the girl to believe that later the accused will marry her, he would be held guilty under section 376 I.P.C.

1 Like

Dharmesh Manjeshwar (Advocate/Lawyer)     24 July 2010

yes no co-ordination amongst the judges .... and may they are not aware of earlier precedents and/or judgements of their own colleagues in similar offences ..... 

pathetic ..... is all i can say ....

1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     24 July 2010

This is the beuty of our law which supports everyone. Maintain equal balance.

One HC say "Mutation" is a judicial proceeding. another says that It is an Administrative proceeding.

One Justice says Law is an inexact science, depends on the judge sitting.

All I can say is this quote,

Opinion is like a pendulum and obeys the same law. If it goes past the centre of gravity on one side, it must go a like distance on the other; and it is only after a certain time that it finds the true point at which it can remain at rest.
Arthur Schopenhauer

2 Like

jayachandran (advocate)     07 August 2010

The law never change. But the decision changes.

It has to be taken into account that what the judges state in the particular case is their personal opinion and not based on law. Precedents have no value because it all stands on individual view and opinion. No consensus thinking.

Why there is a differene of opinion in a Bench. What is the reason. Is it to be permitted.


1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     12 August 2010

very good hemant ji.

actually it is a policylessness of a perticular matter.

rape defined in ipc. it provides policy. but the decission on 5th  of 2006gone beyond the policy.

sc is not always fair and clear .

1 Like

Dhara Shah (Law Officer)     14 August 2010

It is Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar and not Saleha Khatoon Vs State of Bihar

Dhara Shah (Law Officer)     14 August 2010

Sorry it is Saleha Khatoon

nitinjain (Engineer)     15 August 2010

Hi friends is really sad that we have some such ambiguity in our law system.  Atleast in the above mentioned examples it was all different court. I have seen instance where a different judgement was made observations and conclusion drawn by two different judges in a high court.

I want to make an appeal to our legal authority to make the law straight forward.

Specially in the above cases. There is no law spacially for teh situation discussed.

Thirugnanam (business)     17 August 2010

we never get justice in india.judges and advocates confuses themselves and most of the law in our land should be corrected and india need changes by the indian law makers.corruption and political systems in india never allow the law makers to execute the law which we or hc or lower courts difference of opinions.

Deekshitulu.V.S.R (B.Sc, B.L)     04 September 2010

Mr Agrwal

A good  piece to read. The law is raped thorougly. It is only an opinion expressed by the judges. They are the precedents. A Lawyer may defend or be a rposecutor. Use what ever is usefull to your client and forget about the system which is irreparable

Hemant Agarwal ( Mumbai : 9820174108)     05 September 2010

Deeksh*tulu.V.S.R :

1.  Those are not  "Opinion" of the SC & HC judges.  They are orders / judgement affecting all the litigants and other prospective litigants and the whole of a law system.

2.  A lawyer's first duty is towards the interests of his clients.  The interest of the law is to be mandatorily upheld by the Judiciary and the lawyers have no jurisdiction to uphold law.

3.  By the above logic,  IF the SC & HC keep passing on such orders / judgement which is against the preamble of the Act,  then the lawyers and the litigants have no options left but to repent on the ways the judgements are doled out.    Further it cannot be termed as a "PRECEDENT",  since  you would not know whether to use the negative judgement (sometimes NO)   or the positive judgement (sometimes YES).   If you cite the positive SC judgement, your opponent would cite the negative SC judgement.  And the cycle will continue endlessly.  AND ONE MORE  INTRA-CONTRADICTORY  JUDGEMENT WILL BE DOLED OUT .... UNABATED.

4.  We do not need to change the judiciary system.  We just need to KEEP-ON dis-charging  the judges (persons)  who pass such intra-contradictory orders / judgements, without proper application of mind.

5.  It happens only in India.

"Good judgement comes from experience, AND experience comes from bad judgment."

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

1 Like

Vishwa (translator)     05 September 2010

Our judges are such old fogeys that they have never heard of consensual s*x! Dear Hemantji, can you cite any place where this wonderful act between man and woman is mentioned?


NMP (nmp)     27 September 2010

Originally posted by :Hemant Agarwal
" 4.  We do not need to change the judiciary system.  We just need to KEEP-ON dis-charging  the judges (persons)  who pass such intra-contradictory orders / judgements, without proper application of mind.

5.  It happens only in India.

 It does not happen in India, alone. 

But the explaination and justification by Hemant is appreciative and insightful.

Ravikant Soni (LAWYER IN JAIPUR)     27 September 2010

lake of knowledge it is..

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register