Deepak Gulati Case: Clarifying Consent in Sexual Relationships

---

Introduction

The case of Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675] is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that dealt with the distinction between consent and consent obtained under a misconception of fact in cases involving sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. This judgment clarified the legal position under Section 90 and Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and remains relevant even after the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, where similar provisions exist under Sections 63 and 67 respectively.

The Court’s reasoning in this case drew a fine line between a mere breach of promise to marry and a false promise given with fraudulent intent, which vitiates consent and constitutes rape.

Facts of the Case

The prosecutrix, a 19-year-old girl, was acquainted with the accused, Deepak Gulati. They developed a mutual liking and decided to marry. The girl voluntarily left her home and went with the accused to Kurukshetra, where they stayed together for several days and established a physical relationship. The accused, however, did not marry her later and left her at a bus stand. The girl’s family lodged a complaint, and Deepak Gulati was arrested.

He was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 366 IPC (kidnapping). The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Deepak Gulati appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the physical relationship was consensual and that there was no intention to deceive at the time of making the promise of marriage.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual or obtained under a misconception of fact.
2. Whether the promise to marry made by the accused was false from the very beginning, thereby constituting rape under Section 375 IPC, or a mere breach of promise that did not attract criminal liability.

---

Relevant Legal Provisions

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:

• Section 375 – Defines rape, including situations where consent is obtained under a “misconception of fact.”
• Section 90 – States that consent given under fear or misconception of fact is not valid.
• Section 366 – Kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage.
• Section 376 – Punishment for rape.

Corresponding Provisions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:

• Section 63 – Defines rape (similar in substance to Section 375 IPC).
• Section 66 – Punishment for rape (replaces Section 376 IPC).
• Section 67 – Explains consent, which excludes consent obtained under fear or misconception.
• Section 138 – Kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman for marriage or illicit intercourse (similar to Section 366 IPC).

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, holding that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual and did not amount to rape.

Key Observations:

1. Consent under Misconception of Fact:
   The Court reiterated that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 IPC, the promise to marry must have been false at the inception — i.e., the accused never intended to marry the prosecutrix from the very beginning. If the intention to marry was genuine but the relationship later failed due to unforeseen circumstances, it would not constitute rape.
2. Distinction between False Promise and Breach of Promise:
   A false promise is made with no intention to fulfill it, whereas a breach of promise occurs when an intention changes later due to changed circumstances. Only the former attracts criminal liability under Section 375 IPC.
3. Nature of Relationship:
   The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix was not a naïve or immature girl but a 19-year-old adult capable of making her own decisions. She willingly accompanied the accused and stayed with him for several days, showing that she was a consenting party.
4. Intention of the Accused:
   The Court found no evidence to suggest that the accused had a mala fide intention or deceitful purpose at the time of making the promise. Hence, it was a case of breach of promise, not rape.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse based on a genuine relationship or promise of marriage that subsequently fails does not amount to rape, unless it is proved that the promise was false and deceitful from the beginning, thereby inducing the prosecutrix to consent under a misconception of fact.

This distinction protects men from false accusations while ensuring that women are safeguarded from fraudulent and coercive relationships.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarification of Consent:
   The case laid down a crucial precedent clarifying that consent obtained under a genuine belief in a promise of marriage does not automatically render the act as rape.
2. Protection Against Misuse of Law:
   It prevents the misuse of Section 376 IPC (now Section 66 BNS) in cases where relationships fail naturally, ensuring that criminal law is not used as a tool for vengeance.
3. Guiding Principle in Later Cases:
   Subsequent cases, such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], relied heavily on this judgment, reaffirming that intent at the inception is the key factor in determining whether consent was obtained under a misconception of fact.
4. Relevance under BNS, 2023:
   The principle remains fully applicable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which retains the same structure of defining consent, rape, and misconception of fact. The transition from IPC to BNS does not alter the judicial reasoning in such cases.

Conclusion

The judgment in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) is a cornerstone in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of consent in sexual relationships. It strikes a delicate balance between protecting women from deception and safeguarding men from unfounded accusations.

Under both the IPC and BNS, the principle that “consent obtained under a misconception of fact is not consent” continues to guide courts. However, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the element of intention at the inception of the relationship remains the decisive test.

Also Read : Understanding Consent in Indian Rape Law: Uday Case Analysis

---

#DeepakGulatiCase #ConsentUnderMisconception #Section375IPC #Section66BNS #SexualOffencesLaw #IndianCriminalJurisprudence #PromiseToMarry #SupremeCourtJudgment #LegalRemedy #LawBlogIndia