- Introduction
The case of Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh is a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of L. Nageshwar Rao, J. and M.R. Shah, J. The case deals with addressing the complexities surrounding consent in sexual relationships, especially when promises of marriage are involved or made. This case delves into the nuances of consent obtained under false pretences and its implications under Indian law, specifically Sections 376 and 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Here, in its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court addresses these common sexual issues that take place in commonplace India.
- Facts
The accused, Anurag Soni, was arrested after a written report was submitted by the prosecutrix with respect to rape committed by the accused person, upon her, on the pretext of marriage and that she was deceived by the accused. Subsequently, an FIR under Section 376 of IPC was filed and registered and medical and other evidence was collected before the arrest was made. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the abovementioned offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Court held that the accused was, under the Section, guilty of rape by misrepresentation of fact and the promise of marriage to the prosecutrix and therefore consent said to be given by the prosecutrix is not, in fact, consent. Thereupon, the accused was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court where the appeal was dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the learned Sessions Court which convicted to the accused.
- Issues Raised
- The main issue before the Court was whether the Courts below have erred in holding the accused guilty for the offence prescribed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
- The second issue discussed before the Court was that of consent given by misconception and whether it was merely a broken contractual agreement or whether it amounts to rape?
- Contention
Arguments by Appellant
The appellant-accused argued that the allegations that were made against him by the prosecution are false. It was submitted that both courts, i.e.; Sessions Court and High Court erred in their decision of this case. It was contended that while convicting the accused-appellant under Section 375 rape, there has been an oversight on Section 90 IPC and Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, it was contended that the prosecutrix was in love with the Accused and intended on marrying him whereas, it was already a known fact amongst the family that the Appellant was already engaged to be married to one, Priyanka Soni. Despite this knowledge, it is submitted that, the prosecutrix and her family members pressured the Accused to marry the prosecutrix. Senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that even if a promise was made, it cannot be categorised as rape and must be recognised as a ‘breach of promise’.
Arguments by Respondent
The appeal was vehemently opposed by the Respondents. It was argued that the case was not merely a breach of promise but was that of misrepresentation of facts which lead to the rape of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that sexual intercourse only took place after a promise of marriage was made, despite the fixed marriage with Priyanka Soni and therefore the charge and conviction of the Accused under Section 376 IPC, was rightly made by the lower courts as by said fixed marriage, it can be inferred that there was truly no intention of the Accused to marry the prosecutrix.
- Rationale
The Supreme Court of India conducted a thorough examination by relying on a number of precedential case laws like Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) that would aid in understanding the ambit and scope of Sections 375 and 90 of the IPC. Upon such examination, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant, reiterating the lower court’s judgment that consent obtained under the false pretence or promise of marriage does not constitute or grant free consent to sexual relations. The Court emphasised that consent under Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape, must be voluntarily and freely given and not influenced by coercion, misrepresentation, or deceit—such as the promise of marriage. Additionally, the Court also referred to the definition of consent in Section 90 of the IPC, which states that consent given under fear of injury or misconception of fact is not valid. Hence, the Court concluded that a promise to marry, as in such case, made without the intention of fulfilment and mainly to obtain sexual favours, amounts to misconception of fact. In the present case, the false promise of marriage vitiated the Respondent’s consent. Had she known the true intention of the accused-appellant, she would not have consented. The Court recognised this fact as the most prominent one in order to uphold the lower courts’ judgments.
- Defects of Law
In this case of consent by misrepresentation or deceit, there seem to exist no defects of law in the judgment of the Supreme Court; especially in identifying the heinous nature of the crime. However, there is a defect in the societal value of this judgment within the feminist communities that exist. Much to their rightful concern, the Court deemed the woman to be a version of impure if she loses her chastity before her marriage. This follows regressive and antiquated notions of chastity and furthers the misguided belief that good women would never consent to sexual relations unless an offer of marriage was promised. The recognition that commitment-free sexual relations and pre-marital sex, as long as the woman has consented, has not been recognised by the court. This allows the belief that despite the era in which this judgment was passed, where women’s reproductive rights are also important, the Court failed to recognise these reproductive rights. Granted, there needn’t be questioning whether the final judgment is wrong in its holding; the need to recognise sexual and reproductive right of women in India is a necessity.
- Inference
The Apex Court’s decision in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh is a crucial step in the nature of our ever-evolving jurisprudence especially on the matter of consent and sexual autonomy in India. By affirming that consent obtained by deceitful means—false promise of marriage—is invalid, the Court upholds the longstanding principle of voluntary and informed consent. The judgment fortifies legal protections against sexual exploitation and also serves as a deterrent against deceitful practices that undermine individual dignity and private autonomy promised in the Constitution of India.
AUTHOR:
Zai Jivan
O.P. Jindal Global University
Jindal Global Law School