Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke has held that a false promise of marriage, made with deceitful intent, amounts to a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates consent, upholding the accused's rape conviction. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the matter of Rupchand Shende v. State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Rupchand Shende v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The case involves a 16-year-old girl who lodged a report at Bhandara Police Station on 11th May 2019, against the accused Rupchand Shende. 
• The victim was working at "Komal Fruit Centre" while the accused ran a fruit shop and visited the centre to purchase stock, which is how they became acquainted. 
• In June 2017, the accused repeatedly asked for the victim's mobile number, which she eventually provided, leading them to start communicating until her mother took away her phone. 
• On 7th October 2018, while the victim was returning home, the accused allegedly restrained her, demanded sexual favors, and took her to a house where he allegedly sexually assaulted her after promising marriage. 
• The victim alleged that multiple incidents of sexual assault occurred thereafter, resulting in her pregnancy, which she discovered when she missed her menstrual period. 
• When informed about the pregnancy, the accused allegedly provided pills to the victim, but they were ineffective, and she eventually delivered a baby on 21st August 2019. 
• The accused refused to marry the victim despite his promises, which led her to file the police report. 
• Medical examinations confirmed the victim's pregnancy, and DNA testing established that the accused was the biological father of the child. 
• The accused was charged with offences under Section 376(2)(h) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under charges of rape and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, affirming the ten-year sentence imposed by the special POCSO court. 
• The Court held that when a promise to marry is made with no intention to abide by it but to deceive a girl to engage in sexual relations, it creates a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the girl's consent. 
• Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke determined that the accused's engagement with the victim by promising marriage appeared to be mala fide from the beginning, as he completely misled her to obtain sexual intercourse under total misconception. 
• The Court observed that the victim, being under sixteen years of age at the time of the incident, could not provide legally valid consent, rendering the question of consent irrelevant. 
• DNA evidence conclusively established that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the victim, corroborating the victim's testimony regarding the sexual relationship. 
• The Court distinguished between mere breach of promise and a false promise made with the sole intention to seduce, categorizing the present case as the latter where the offence of rape was established. 
• The Court noted that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act,2012 regarding culpable mental state, which includes intention, motive, knowledge of fact and belief. 
• The appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. 

What is Provision Related to False Promise to Marry under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• BNS has a separate provision punishing the act of false promise to marry. 
  • Section 69 of BNS provides punishment for Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc. 
  • It states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  • Explanation— “deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. 

What is Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 64 in the BNS provides punishment for rape . 
• Earlier it was dealt with under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code,1860 
• Section 64(1) establishes the general punishment for rape as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine. 
• Section 64(2) provides enhanced or aggravated forms of rape with more severe punishments. 
• Section 64(2)(h) specifically deals with a situation where a person "commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant." 
• The punishment prescribed for offences under Section 64(2)(h) is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of the person's natural life), along with a fine. 
• This provision considers rape of a pregnant woman as an aggravated form of sexual assault, recognizing the additional vulnerability of pregnant victims and potential harm to both the woman and her unborn child. 
• Section 64(2)(h) is one of several circumstances listed in Section 64(2) where the law imposes more severe punishments due to the particularly egregious nature of the offence. 
• This section recognizes that committing rape with the knowledge that the victim is pregnant demonstrates heightened culpability warranting enhanced punishment. 
• The classification of this offence under Section 64(2) rather than 64(1) reflects the legislature's intent to treat such cases with greater severity. 

What are the Relevant Provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012? 

• Section 6(1) prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, extendable to imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of natural life), along with fine, or with death. 
• Section 6(2) mandates that the fine imposed under Section 6(1) shall be just and reasonable, paid directly to the victim to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation costs. 
• Section 29 creates a statutory presumption whereby when a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting, or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the POCSO Act, the Special Court shall presume that the accused has committed the offence unless proven otherwise. 
• The presumption under Section 29 places the burden of proof on the accused to establish their innocence, effectively reversing the traditional criminal law principle of "innocent until proven guilty" for specified POCSO offences. 
• Section 30(1) establishes a presumption of culpable mental state in POCSO prosecutions, requiring the accused to prove the absence of such mental state as a defense. 
• Section 30(2) sets a high standard for rebutting the presumption, specifying that a fact is proved only when the Special Court believes it exists "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than by mere "preponderance of probability." 
• The Explanation to Section 30 defines "culpable mental state" broadly to include intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief in or reason to believe a fact. 
• These provisions collectively create a stringent legal framework that significantly strengthens the prosecution's position in POCSO cases, recognizing the vulnerability of child victims and the difficulty in producing evidence in such sensitive cases.