Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.46 seconds)Uday vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2003
On the other hand, the statement of PW 12 that
"later on", the accused became ready to marry her
but his father and others took him away from the
village would indicate that the accused might have
been prompted by a genuine intention to marry
which did not materialise on account of the
pressure exerted by his family elders. It seems to
be a case of breach of promise to marry rather
than a case of false promise to marry. On this
aspect also, the observations of this Court in Uday
case [Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC
46: 2003 SCC (Cri) 775] at para 24 come to the
aid of the appellant."
Section 90 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Deepak Gulati vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2013
In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013)7
SCC 675:(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660], the Court has drawn a
distinction between rape and consensual sex. This is a
case of a prosecutrix aged 19 years at the time of the
incident. She had an inclination towards the accused. The
accused had been giving her assurances of the fact that
he would get married to her. The prosecutrix, therefore,
left her home voluntarily and of her own free will to go
with the accused to get married to him. She called the
accused on a phone number given to her by him, to ask
him why he had not met her at the place that had been
pre-decided by them. She also waited for him for a long
time, and when he finally arrived, she went with him to a
place called Karna Lake where they indulged in sexual
intercourse. She did not raise any objection at that stage
and made no complaints to anyone. Thereafter, she went
to Kurukshetra with the accused, where she lived with his
relatives. Here too, the prosecutrix voluntarily became
intimate with the accused.
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2019
11. The Apex Court, while delineating inter-play between
promise of marriage; allegation of rape and consensual
relationship, in the case of PRAMOD SURYABHAN PAWAR
(supra), has held as follows:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 November, 2018
12. The Apex Court, a little later in the case of DHRUVARAM
MURLIDHAR SONAR (supra), while following the earlier
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UDAY v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 and DEELIP
SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2005) 1 SCC 88,
has held as follows: