On February 26, 2025, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, upheld the conviction of Rupchand Shende under Section 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court emphasized that a false promise of marriage made with the intent to deceive a woman into sexual relations constitutes a ‘misconception of fact,’ thereby invalidating her consent under these legal provisions.
Justice Joshi-Phalke emphasized that the accused’s false promise of marriage was not genuine from the beginning. The court observed that such deceitful promises, made with no intention of fulfilment, mislead the victim into engaging in sexual relations under a misconception of fact, thereby invalidating her consent. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that a false promise to marry, made with the intent to deceive, vitiates consent and constitutes a misconception of fact under the law. The blog explains the court’s reasoning, legal implications, and how this ruling strengthens protections against sexual exploitation under false pretense.
Case Background of False Promise of Marriage
The victim, a minor (15 yrs) employed at a fruit juice centre, became acquainted with Shende, a regular customer. He persistently sought her contact information and engaged in frequent conversations. On October 7, 2018, Shende allegedly took her to a secluded location, assured her of marriage, and engaged in sexual intercourse. This pattern continued, with Shende repeatedly promising marriage to maintain the sexual relationship.
Subsequently, the victim discovered she was pregnant and informed Shende, who provided pills to terminate the pregnancy. Despite consuming the medication, the pregnancy continued, leading to the birth of a child. Medical examinations confirmed her pregnancy, and DNA evidence established Shende as the biological father. When the victim insisted on marriage, Shende refused, prompting her to file a First Information Report (FIR).
Court’s Reasoning and Observations in False Promise of Marriage
The Bombay High Court ruled that since the victim was below sixteen years of age, her consent was legally irrelevant, as per the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court explicitly stated:
“It is not merely a case of breach of promise but it is a case only to seduce the false promise was made and the victim was subjected for sexual assault on misconception of fact. Moreover, the victim who was below sixteen years of age and her consent is not relevant as it is not consent at all.”
The Nagpur Bench also observed that there was no love affair between the accused and the victim. The accused was merely a regular customer at the fruit shop where the victim worked. The Court rejected the accused’s defence that the victim had a “one-sided love affair”, stating that his claim itself proved his intention to deceive. The Bench remarked:
“They are having acquaintance as the accused used to visit the fruit shop wherein the victim was working. It is also not the case of the accused that the victim was having any love and affection for him. Though he stated that she has having one-sided love affair and though his engagement with the victim to have physical relationship and the defence taken by him that the victim is having one-sided love affair, the same itself is sufficient to show his intention.”
Furthermore, the Court held that from the beginning, the accused had no genuine intention to marry the victim. It stated:
“It is evident that at the initial stage itself the accused had no intention to keep his promise to marry the victim. The accused has not brought on record a circumstance to show that he could not fulfil the promise due to unavoidable circumstances…the trial court has appreciated the entire evidence and also held that presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is attracted. The said presumption is not rebutted though foundational facts are proved.”
Additionally, the Court referred to Section 30 of the POCSO Act, which presumes a culpable mental state on the part of the accused. The burden was on him to prove otherwise, which he failed to do.
The accused had argued that the victim willingly entered into a “physical relationship” with him and that it was a consensual act. He contended that merely failing to marry her did not constitute an offense under Section 376(2)(h) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the Court dismissed this argument, reinforcing that when a false promise of marriage is made with the intent to deceive, it vitiates consent, making the act punishable under the law.
Medical Examination and DNA Findings
The Bombay High Court relied on medical records and DNA evidence, which confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the victim’s child. The DNA report played a crucial role in proving that the accused had engaged in sexual relations with the victim under a false promise of marriage. The Court observed:
“This fact is apparent from the DNA Report. It is more than clear, that the accused made a false promise that he would marry her, from the fact that no circumstances are brought on record by the accused to show that at the relevant time he was intending to marry her, but the circumstances are such that he could not perform the marriage with her.”
Confirmation of Accused’s Paternity Through DNA Test
The DNA test results further strengthened the prosecution’s case, eliminating any doubt regarding the identity of the child’s father. The Court held that the false promise of marriage was a deliberate act intended to mislead the victim, resulting in sexual exploitation. The accused failed to provide any evidence that he had genuine intentions of marrying the victim, making it clear that the consent was obtained under misconception of fact.
False Promise of Marriage and Its Legal Consequences
The Court reiterated that a promise to marry, if made with no intention of fulfilment, amounts to deception and vitiates consent under Section 375 IPC. This principle was reinforced through previous judicial precedents, making it clear that fraudulent inducement for sexual relations constitutes a punishable offense.
Supreme Court Precedents on Misconception of Fact
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, the High Court reaffirmed:
“Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a ‘misconception of fact’ that vitiates the woman’s ‘consent’.”
This established that a false promise of marriage made with fraudulent intent negates valid consent, making the act a criminal offense under the law.
Understanding the POCSO Act and Section 6
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a special law designed to protect children from sexual offenses, including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography. It ensures that legal proceedings are conducted in a child-friendly manner, from reporting the crime to investigation and trial. The law mandates the establishment of Special Courts for faster case resolution and ensures that child victims are not subjected to unnecessary trauma during the legal process.
What is Section 6 of the POCSO Act?
Section 6 of the POCSO Act deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which refers to severe forms of sexual offenses committed against children, particularly when the child is below sixteen years of age. This section prescribes rigorous punishment, which includes a minimum imprisonment of twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment, and in certain cases, even the death penalty. A fine is also imposed on the offender, which may be used for the victim’s welfare.
Application of Section 6 in This Case
In the case at hand, the accused was charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act because the victim was a minor at the time of the offense. Since the law does not recognize a minor’s consent as valid in cases of sexual assault, the accused’s argument that the relationship was consensual was legally irrelevant. The law is structured to protect children from exploitation, ensuring that offenders cannot escape liability by claiming consent from a child.
Why Section 6 is Important?
This section of the POCSO Act reflects the seriousness of sexual crimes against minors. It acknowledges that children are vulnerable and may not fully understand the consequences of coercion or manipulation. By imposing strict punishments, the law acts as a deterrent to those who attempt to exploit minors under false promises or other deceptive means.
The POCSO Act serves as a critical legal framework in ensuring justice for child victims, reinforcing that any sexual offense against a minor is treated as a serious crime with no exceptions.
Court’s Final Judgment on the Case
After carefully examining the medical, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction, concluding that the accused had deliberately misled the victim to exploit her sexually. Since the victim was a minor, her consent was legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act, further strengthening the case against the accused.
Impact of the Ruling Under the POCSO Act and False Promise of Marriage
The ruling reaffirmed that false promises of marriage leading to sexual exploitation are punishable under the POCSO Act, especially when the victim is a minor. The judgment serves as a strong deterrent against such deceptive practices and reinforces the legal protections for victims of sexual assault.
Dismissal of Appeal and Legal Stand on Consent and Deception
This case underscores the legal principle that consent obtained through fraudulent means, such as a false promise of marriage, is invalid under Section 376(2)(h) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court’s ruling reinforces that such deceitful inducements leading to sexual exploitation are punishable under law, especially when the victim is a minor. Dismissing the accused’s appeal, the Court firmly stated:
“The accused completely misled her by promising her for marriage. This kind of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuaded a girl to believe that he is going to marry and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception cannot be treated to be a consent.”
This verdict highlights that consent obtained through deception has no legal standing and strengthens the legal framework protecting victims from sexual exploitation under false pretences.
Final Thoughts
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction, ruling that a false promise of marriage vitiates consent under the POCSO Act, especially when the victim is a minor. The judgment reinforces that consent obtained through deception is legally invalid, ensuring strict punishment for offenders who exploit minors under false pretences. By upholding the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court has set an important precedent, ensuring that offenders who manipulate minors with false promises face strict punishment. This judgment serves as a strong reminder that deception in relationships, when used to exploit a minor, is a serious offense under Indian law.
