


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
moot court argument for section 376
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
Argument 1: Whether the accused is liable to be punished under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860? Consent was unambiguously given It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the accused is not punishable for rape under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the section 375 places focus on “consent” and defines rape as follows:
As per the above definition it can be implied that allowance of the prosecutrix is necessary to establish consent. In the case of Uday Singh v. State of Kartnataka, it was held by Justice N. Santosh Hegde & Justice B.P. Singh that “It usually happens when two young persons are madly in love and promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion in weak moments; succumb to the temptation of having sexual relationship. The girl willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it. And the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted of the charge.” In the instant case, Riya’s actions clearly portrayed her “will” and “consent” to engage in sexual intercourse as even after learning about Vikram’s marriage, she confessed her love for him^3 then they embraced each other even before Vikram convinced her about his intent to marry her.^4 Hence the consent was unambiguously given to the accused. Non- Applicability of Section 90 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 It is humbly submitted that Section 90 of Indian Penal Code which states “Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.—A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.” In the case of Sri Kumaresh Chikkappa Bagodi vs State of Karnatak, the Karnataka High Court clearly stated that: “I am of the view, that the consent in the present nature, based on the promise of marriage does not bring the act of sexual intercourse of the accused with the victim, under the definition of rape under Section 375 Indian Penal Code. Again if we refer to Section 90 Indian Penal Code similar provisions akin to clauses thirdly and fourthly, fifthly are found. It has been interpreted, that if the case falls under any of the clauses, it is not consent at all. Conversely if the 3 Moot Proposition, Page 3, Line 14 4 Moot Proposition, Page 3, Line 22
Kumari who was under the treatment of Dr. Bindu Verma had to buy Cystova Tablet which is used for restoring normal ovulation for infertile women and thus leading to fertility.^5 Hence, it can be proved that Riya Devi was pregnant and that is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of facts. Therefore, the accused should not be held liable to be punished under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5 https://www.netmeds.com/prescriptions/cystova-tablet-10-s