Mere Promise To Marry Not A Misconception Of Fact Under Section 90 IPC: Gauhati HC

• The Gauhati HC on Friday held that a mere promise to marry will not be a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
• The petitioner was accused by the girl’s family of kidnapping and raping her on the pretext of marriage. The accused was booked under section 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage) and section 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC.
• During trial, the girl admitted that she was in love with the accused. He had proposed to marry her pursuant to which they had gone to the house of the accused’s paternal uncle to get married. Here she said that she refused to marry him. Enraged he forcefully applied vermilion on her forehead.
• Citing several decisions of the Hon’ble SC namely Uday vs. State of Karnataka, Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana in which the Apex Court has repeatedly held that the consent of the victim would be considered to be given under misconception of fact only if right from the inception the accused had no intention of actually marrying the girl and the promise to marry held out by him was held to be a mere hoax.
• The court further held that the breach of a promise is different from not fulfilling a false promise.
• The court also held that the testimony of the girl during trial “failed to inspire confidence in the court to the effect that she was ever kidnapped and raped”.
• Thus, in light of these findings the Court held the lower courts had erroneously convicted the accused and he was acquitted.

Read the above article carefully? Let’s see if you can answer the following—

Consent known to be given under fear or misconception is given under what chapter of the IPC?