Intercourse on false promise of marriage with intent to sell victim constitutes rape under misconception of fact.

The Appellant, Tahir Ansari, befriended the victim (a 19-year-old tribal girl from Jharkhand) through a wrong-number call in August 2010

Under a promise of marriage, he induced her to leave her employment and move into a rented room in Kapashera, Delhi, where they lived as husband and wife for approximately eight months

The victim alleged that the Appellant initially forced himself upon her and subsequently maintained sexual relations under the continued pretext of marriage

On May 12, 2011, the Appellant took the victim to G.B. Road, a notorious red-light district, purportedly for a court marriage

He was apprehended by police following information from an individual, Ashok Aggarwal, regarding a proposed transaction to sell the girl for ₹50,000

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant appealed on the grounds of consensual sex

1. Whether sexual intercourse preceded by a promise of marriage, which is subsequently not fulfilled, constitutes "rape" under Section 375 of the IPC due to a "misconception of fact" regarding consent

2. Whether the lack of injury in the MLC and the delay in reporting vitiate the prosecution's case when the evidence suggests a fraudulent intent from the inception

The Court primarily applied Section 376 of the IPC regarding punishment for rape and Section 90 of the IPC, which stipulates that consent given under a "misconception of fact" is not valid consent in the eyes of the law

The Court relied on the precedent of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad, which held that sexual intercourse obtained through a false assurance of marriage constitutes rape

It further applied the principles from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, distinguishing between a mere "breach of promise" and a "false promise" made with mala fide intent to satisfy lust at the initial stage

The Court reasoned that the Appellant’s intentions were mala fide from the inception, noting the suspicious speed of the marriage proposal (within 20 days of telephonic contact) and the lack of any effort to formalize the marriage during eight months of cohabitation

The Court observed that while the relationship appeared consensual, such consent was viciated by fraud and deception under Section 90 IPC

The Appellant's conduct—taking individual photographs of the victim, discussing a ₹50,000 transaction, and bringing her to G.B. Road—overwhelmingly indicated an intent to sell her into prostitution rather than marry her

The Court found the victim's testimony consistent and corroborated by the landlord (PW-1) and the medical evidence (MLC showing a prior pregnancy/abortion), concluding that the consent was obtaining through a "misconception of fact"

The Court held that the consent was immaterial as it was obtained through a fraudulent promise of marriage and noted that the Appellant’s attempt to sell the victim further evidenced his criminal intent

The sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment was maintained, and the Appellant was ordered to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence