In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that engaging in physical relations with a woman under a false promise of marriage is considered rape. This judgment came while rejecting the appeal of Dr. Anurag Soni from Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The court, however, reduced Dr. Sonis initial 10-year prison sentence to seven years. The bench, comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah, delivered this verdict on April 9, emphasizing the illegality of obtaining consent through deceit.Courts VerdictThe court highlighted that the victim consented to the sexual relationship based on Dr. Sonis promise of marriage. When he later reneged on this promise, it was deemed an act of fraud. The justices ruled that obtaining consent through false pretenses constitutes a violation under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), thus classifying the act as rape.ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST FOR MENSECTION 69 IS HERE pic.twitter.com/L964UrCqw9— Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) June 22, 2024False Promises and Legal ConsequencesThe Supreme Court underscored that consent obtained through false promises cannot be used as a defense in rape cases. The prosecution effectively demonstrated that Dr. Soni never intended to marry the victim his promises were solely to satisfy his sexual desires. The court firmly stated that if the promise of marriage had not been made, the victim would not have consented to the relationship, thereby framing the case as one of deception and sexual assault.Rejection of Defense ArgumentsIn an attempt to mitigate his punishment, Dr. Soni argued that both he and the victim were now married to different people. The Supreme Court dismissed this defense, asserting that his subsequent marriage did not absolve him of the crime committed. The justices reinforced that misleading a woman into a sexual relationship under the guise of marriage is a serious offense.Reduction of SentenceWhile affirming the guilt of Dr. Soni, the Supreme Court reduced his sentence from ten years to seven years. This adjustment does not undermine the gravity of the crime but reflects the courts consideration of various legal factors. The reduced sentence still serves as a substantial period of imprisonment, reinforcing the message that such deceitful actions are punishable by law.
