Query – can sheela files a case against neeraj if neeraj falsely by representing facts indulge in sexual intercourse
Sheela, in my opinion, will undoubtedly find a rape case against Neeraj.
As defined by section 375 of the CRPC, rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will and without her consent. Neeraj has obtained her consent through deception. Consent known to be given under misrepresentation of facts is not a consent, according to Section 90 of the IPC.
So Sheela has every right to file a complaint against Neeraj. According to the facts, when Sheela asked Neeraj if he was married or not, he never revealed his marital status and demonstrated by his gestures that he was not married. Not only did he conceal the facts of marriage, but he also conveyed to her that he genuinely loves her, and when Sheela asked if he would marry her, he simply smiled and demonstrated that one day he will definitely marry her.
Sheela will never consent to sexual intercourse if she knows Neeraj is already married and has no plans to marry her in the future.
Although in this case Sheela provides her consent voluntarily but she was misled. This is the prima facie case of misconception of facts. Since the beginning, Neeraj has misled Sheela about the facts.
Further my opinion is supported by the case of of Saleha Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Ors.(1988), the Patna High Court observed and held that consent obtained from a woman under false pretences or by deception is not valid consent in the eyes of the law. The court also emphasised the importance of the term “consent” in rape laws, opining that consent obtained from a woman under the false promise of marriage would be rape under Section 375.
The Supreme Court held in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) that an accused can be convicted of rape under the penal provisions only if there is evidence that “the accused’s intention was mala fide and that he has clandestine motives.” The defendant should also have sufficient evidence to show that he had no intention of marrying the victim in the first place, according to the court. In such a case, Section 90 IPC cannot be used to impose criminal liability on the accused while pardoning the victim’s entire act unless the court is satisfied that the accused never intended to marry the victim from the start.
In the case of Sheela , Neeraj misrepresented the facts from the beginning and he have no sufficient evidence to prove the same cause he never tell her about marital status from the beginning.
Thus, if the victim’s consent is obtained through misrepresentation of facts, fraud, or misunderstanding, it will be considered against her will or consent. In the case at hand, Neeraj obtained Sheela’s consent by concealing his marital status and assuring her that he would marry her by his gestures.
As a result, if both had sexual relations under the false promise of marriage, it would be rape under section 375 of the IPC. Sheela can thus file a rape charge in this situation where they both had a sexual encounter.