Section 376

State full facts of case.

initially the girl was raped and the boy stopped her from telling anyone with a promise to marry her ... for next one year he kept making physical realtion, took very gud care of her , won her trust .......and wen the time came  to marry her , he left the state .......... the girl went to file the case on 20th june .but again she was stopped from the guy and his mother .and they promised her that they are cmng back on 14th july to talk ........the girl waited .but due to their behaviuor , she became sure that they made false promise ........... and she filed case on 8th july............ the complainiant gave the boy's adddresss whr he is right now .but police has not done anythng .and infact she doesnt knw anythng abt her mediacl report .......  IO gives her rude answers wen she enquires abt her FIR investigation status

last time  the boy went physical wid her was 2nd june .... this was the boy's trick might be to stop her from filling case as the delay wud have  rendered an invalid mediacl ....... but the victim has proofs that he promised marraige and she also has proves abt physical relation .. and girl says that though she wasnt informed abt her mediacl result .shw saw the doctor writing some medicines for her on medical report ......does it mean that the report showed somethng in her favour?

It is misuse of LAW... Please don't do all these..

I am not intended to hurt but sorry it is not "RAPE".

Judiciary has initial sympathy towards girls to rescue them from being harassed and exploited... If we continue to misuse the law to just settle down the personals .... ??????????

Pl. answer me..

Let me assume that first relation was "RAPE" wht about the rest one year...

Your phrase "WIN OVER THE GIRL TRUST" is very contradictory...

(by doing what ??????)

It is not a rape case as the girl have consented for s*x with boy.

Dear Shweta,

Its a case of Rape and comes within the ambit of Sec 376 of I P C.

Sex on false promise of marriage amounts to rape. What is voluntary consent and what is not depends on the facts of each case. Presumption introduced in Evidence Act due to atrocities committed against women. 

The Supreme Court has held that having s*xual intercourse with a girl with her consent obtained through fraud, coercion or on promise of marriage amounts to rape.

A Bench, comprising Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice Altamas Kabir, said consent given under fear of injury or a misconception of fact could not be construed to be a valid consent and the s*xual act would come within the definition of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

It said: "What is voluntary consent and what is not a voluntary consent depends on the facts of each case. One has to see the factors like the age of the girl, her education and her status in the society and likewise the social status of the boy. If the attending circumstances lead to the conclusion that it was not only the accused but also the prosecutrix [girl] who was keen, then in that case, the offence is condoned. But in case a poor girl does not understand what the consequences may be for indulging in such acts and when the accused promised to marry but never intended to from the beginning then the consent of the girl is of no consequence."

Writing the judgment, Justice Mathur said that if s*xual intercourse had been committed by the accused when there was no valid consent, the court could presume that the accused had committed a rape. The Bench said that such a presumption had been introduced by the Legislature in the Evidence Act in view of the atrocities being committed against women.

In the instant case the appellant Yedla Srinivasa Rao was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment on a charge of raping a 16-year-old girl. The prosecution case was that he promised to marry her but did not do so. After the girl became pregnant, a case of `rape' was registered against him. The trial court acquitted the accused holding that since the girl consented to the intercourse, it would not amount to rape. On appeal by the State, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the order and awarded him seven-year imprisonment.

Upholding the judgment, the Supreme Court Bench said it was clear from the evidence that the accused had made a false promise to marry the girl. The intention of the accused right from the beginning was not bona fide and the poor girl was misled by the promise of marriage.

It is not a case of rape because there was s*x many times.So there was neither deception nor misconseption.