Sex before marriage is Rape says Delhi HC, is it right?

first of all it is to see that the s*x is with consent or without consent.... if it is with consent then it should not....!!!

No it is no rape. as held by apex court in Uday V/S State of Karnataka , decided on 16 feb 2003.-" Sexual intercourse between adult male (21 years) and adult female (19 Years) of age –both deeply in love with each other- retracting from promise to marry by male- female getting pregnant and lodging F.I.R.- alleged that consent obtaining by fraud and false promise- held case is of s*xual intercourse with free consent not a case of rape.

it is well settled that unless it is proved that the accusd had intention to deceive the victim girl from the very beginnig it is not rape. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL ON IPC. In our case it appears that they wanted to enjoy each other as the proposal for marriage came soon may be the ground for refusal is baseless. the recent judgment of the Apex Court refusimg  to grant relief to n NGO seeking to ban sell of oral contraceptives is a cursor where our law permits to go so far as younger ones are concerned.

 I am told that s*x after marriage without her consent is also rape. Comment please.

Assumi sir,

what i feel after going though Delhi High courts opinion is that High court has used its inherent powers.

However my opinion is that this case does not squarely falls in sec.376 but it  may be case of sec 420 and 354 IPC1860.The reason is consent of the girl  was given for intercourse and girl complaint not for s*x but for not being married.

To be more specific i would like to add that it was not only the boy who had knowledge that he is not her husband but even the girl knew that she is not married with him,then why did she gave her consent?

I agree with the views of Ms.Shamina Sayed.

Assumi sir,

What i feel after going through the rulings of Delhi High court is that the Hon'ble High Court has used its inherent powers while  giving its rulings.

My opinion is that this case does not squarely falls U/s 376 IPC but it may be the case of 420 and 354.

The reason being the consent of the girl.To be more specific on this point,the girl did not complaint for intercourse but for not being married with that boy.It is not only that boy knew that he is not her husband but even the girl very well knew that he is not her husband,then why she gave her consent?she could have waited till marriage.However is a very good ruling!good lesson for wrong doers!!!I appreciate the Hon'ble justice who delivered this ruling.

 i agree wid shamina totally

I AGREE WITH SHAMINA .

Respected members,

Once a news appeared related with this of Honble SC, Which is in Hindi, Please go thro' it.

युवती ने खुद खोया कौमार्यः सुप्रीम कोर्ट

नयी दिल्ली, एजेंसी

First Published:31-12-09 10:16 PM

Last Updated:31-12-09 10:25 PM

 ई-मेल प्रिंट  टिप्पणियॉ:  पढे  लिखे (0)  अ+ अ-

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने एक लड़की के साथ बलात्कार के मामले में दोषी ठहराये जा चुके शख्स को बरी कर दिया और कहा कि पीड़िता ने खुद कौमार्य भंग कराया और उसके नाबालिग होने के पर्याप्त सबूत नहीं हैं। शीर्ष न्यायालय ने सुनील को बरी करते हुए कहा कि खुद पीड़िता के पिता बिशन उसकी उम्र नहीं बता सके और अभियोजन पक्ष भी डॉ साधना वर्मा द्वारा सुझाये गये ऑसिफिकेशन तथा रेडियोलॉजी परीक्षण कराने में नाकाम रहा।

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने फैसले में कहा, दर्ज साक्ष्यों से यह स्पष्ट है कि शिकायती (सुनील) अभियोजिका की जाति और गोत्र से ही संबंध रखता है और अकसर उसके घर जाता था। उनके बीच प्यार का मामला था और (उच्च) न्यायालय ने भी कहा कि उसने कभी अपीलकर्ता सुनील द्वारा कौमार्य भंग किये जाने पर विरोध नहीं जताया।

न्यायमूर्ति दलवीर भंडारी और न्यायमूर्ति ए़क़े पटनायक की पीठ ने चंडीगढ़ की एक सत्र अदालत द्वारा सुनील को दोषी ठहराये जाने के फैसले को रद्द करते हुए यह फैसला सुनाया। सुनील ने उच्चतम न्यायालय में गुहार लगाते हुए अभियोजन पक्ष के बयान में अनेक विसंगतियों का जिक्र किया था। शीर्ष न्यायालय ने कहा कि आपराधिक मामलों में किसी व्यक्ति को अटकलबाजी पर दोषी ठहराना अनुचित होगा।

it is ridiculous and biased. When it comes to s*xual related matters and especially concerning women we seem to be regressive. Rape is forceful s*x. So if there is voluntary s*x, to interpret it as rape is obnoxious. If somebody was promised offers and therefore ended up having s*x, then that person should file a case for recovery of money or benefits that was promised...where is the question of s*x.

The person in question has agreed for s*x eyeing benefits. If she doesnt get the remedy is suit for recovery, nothing else

 

hi

 

indian girls are very emotional and for this case i think boy should be pusnished.

because before s*x he know that she is from another caste.

if he dont want to marry just beacuse girl is from another ccaste then he should not do s*x with her too.

if court not punish him then every rapper say that i can marry him because she is from another caste & i dont know it before s*x.

wow what a great idea

 

I know girl is also liable for this but u cant let the boy like this easily

 

 

hi

 

one thing I want to ask that boy.

if he dont know before s*x that girl is from another caste then ? is he know that after s*x that girl is from not his caste ??

is this means that boy is very experinced with his caste girls ?

I think dilip kumar vs. State of bihar must be referred here where supreme court has given interpretation of the word "consent" u/s 376 by importing definition u/s 90 of IPC itself and held that where the accused have obtained the consent with promise of marriage and he intends not to marry at the time of intercourse then that will not constitute a valid consent, and offence is proved. The present case is dealing with the anticipatory bail in rape case with somehow same facts, and the delhi high court has commented as above whether there is prima facie case against the accused or not. now my question is one step ahead that whether prove of lack of consent or not in the present case could shif towards accused reading section 114 A of evidence act or not? So once s*xual intercourse is proved and the victim says that there is no consent, now whether on the facts of present case accused will have to prove that he does intend to marry her at the time of s*xual intercourse ?

 Dont go in to the case as the s*x between us is with consent or not. The girl might have consented that engagement over and having trust on the guy only.

But that guy made breach of trust also and with a criminal intention to have s*x with her would have made her give consent for s*x as if he will marry her