In another controversial judgment the Kerela High Court observed that, if the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the victim to indulge in sexual acts, it will not amount to rape. In the present case, the accused, promised to marry the victim and based on that promise the victim consented to sexual intercourse. A case was registered against the accused. The accused then married the victim,subsequently the couple approached the Court and said that they were living a happy life and hence the criminal proceedings were dropped. The question which was considered by the High Court was that, whether the consent was given by the victim on false promise of marriage by accused.
A concept pertinent to the present case was that of consent. This was explained by Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi who observed that if consent is given by the complainant under misconception of fact, it is vitiated. Consent requires the voluntary participation after the knowledge of the moral participation of the act, also, having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. In the instant case, consent was given on basis of the promise made, the petitioner had no fraudulent intention in making the promise that he would marry the respondent.
The Court observed that compromise or settlement between the accused and the victim in a case of rape has no legal sanction. But the question arose as to whether marriage between the accused and the victim can be considered as a sufficient ground to quash the prosecution proceedings against the accused. It was decided by the Court that, if the subsequent marriage between the accused and the victim takes place, it indicates to the fulfilment of the promise, and has to be considered and hence the proceedings are to be quashed. Another reason behind this is that, the prosecution will cause embarrassment in the marital life.