consent

Section 90 of IPC-1860 or Section 28 of BNS-2023 does not define the term “Consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as Consent.

In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein the Supreme Court observed that, “consent is stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an active will in mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of.”

In Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that, “consent for the purpose of Section 375 (of IPC), requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance of the moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent.”

In Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 615, wherein it was observed that the intention of the accused was not honest from the beginning, and the kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be any consent because she was under a misconception of fact that the accused intended to marry her, and therefore, she submitted to sexual intercourse with him….