![\"Showcasing](\"https:\/\/vidhikshiksha.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/the-law.jpeg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
The Kerala High Court said that-<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
“Sexual autonomy is a natural right of a woman which the legislature intends to protect as well. Upon a combined reading of Section 90 of the IPC and Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that if the material facts which might affect consent are not revealed to the partner, the consent so obtained would violate the decisional autonomy of the woman which is envisaged under section 375 of the IPC.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Applying the same to the facts of the case, the Kerala High Court said- <\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Merely for the reason that the accused contracted another marriage immediately after the sexual act with the victim cannot give rise to the presumption of lack of consent. The court noted that the sexual act committed by the accused was with the real intention to marry the victim. But, he could not hold onto his promise due to resistance from his family.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Moreover, in the absence of any other evidence on the side of the prosecution, the conduct of the accused can only be treated as a breach of promise. It, therefore, set aside the conviction of a man for the offense of rape under S 375 of the IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Blog By: Shimona Singh Kulhara<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n YouTube: Vidhik Shiksha Case: Ramchandran @ Chandran Vs. State of Kerala In the case, a Division Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":308,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
https:\/\/youtube.com\/c\/manmohanjoshi<\/a>
For more blogs reach us at www.vidhikshiksha.com
New blog: Right to Information<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"