SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(2.) THIS case has very peculiar facts and circumstances. The prosecutrix is an Advocate, by profession, who had lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (South), Jaipur on 21. 1. 2008 and the same was registered as FIR No. 36/2008 on 4. 2. 2008 for the offences under Sections 415, 493, 420, 506, 376 and 120-B IPC. The allegations made in the report are that as both the parties belong to the same caste, their families had agreed to solemnize the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner Subhash. Subsequently, it was found that the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner was of the same `gotra' as that of the complainant family. Therefore, the elder members of the family of the accused had declined to have the matrimonial relations, on that Count.

(3.) SO far as the Case of Pradeep Kumar Verma (supra) is concerned, it is noteworthy that the ratio the case was "while determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the Court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. "