CASE NAME	Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88
CITATION	AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 203, 2004 AIR SCW 6479, 2005 AIR – JHAR. H. C. R. 193, (2004) 4 MPLJ 465, 2005 (1) UJ (SC) 179
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Justice P.P. Naolekar
APPELLANT	Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar
DECIDED ON	3rd November 2004

INTRODUCTION

The case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar against the State of Bihar (3 November 2004) is about the legal repercussions of killing someone while committing a crime. The appellant, Deelip Singh, was convicted of murder in connection with a criminal act, and the case is about whether the circumstances surrounding the incident were sufficient to hold him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder. The case’s core focus is on interpreting the factors required to constitute murder, particularly in circumstances where the conduct was undertaken in furtherance of a criminal enterprise or while performing another offense, such as robbery or theft.

The appeal queries the conviction, citing concerns about the sufficiency of the evidence, the application of the accusation, and the interpretation of the accused’s mental state during the conduct of the crime. The case also discusses the level of intent and premeditation required to show guilt under Section 302, as well as the significance of circumstantial evidence in determining the chain of events that led to the crime. The result in this case is significant not only for its factual and legal subtleties but also for its larger ramifications on how courts should view situations containing claims of murder in conjunction with other crimes.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim girl’s version was that she and the accused were neighbors who fell in love. That one day, the accused forcibly raped her and later consoled her by saying that he would marry her. She succumbed to the accused’s entreaties to have sexual relations with him on account of his promise to marry her and thus continued to have sex on several occasions. She informed her parents about her pregnancy. Even after that, the familiarity remained to the knowledge of the accused’s parents and other relatives, who were under the belief that he would marry the girl, but the accused refused, and his father took him out of the hamlet to block the marriage attempt. The father’s efforts to establish the marital tie were unsuccessful, so she was forced to make the complaint after some time had passed. 

The prosecution presented evidence in the form of a school diploma and a medical expert’s judgment to prove that the victim girl was under the age of 16 when the criminal act was committed, making her agreement irrelevant. The prosecution paid special attention to this point. 

The trial Court accepted the prosecution’s argument in this regard, concluding that the girl was under the age of 16 at the time. The High Court upheld this finding. The trial Court also recorded an alternate conclusion that she was violently raped on the first occasion and that the accused continued to make fraudulent promises to marry her after that. As a result, it was determined that either no consent existed or that consent was given involuntarily. Thus, the trial Court determined that the victim girl had sexual intercourse against her will or without her permission. If this is the case, the offense is considered committed regardless of the girl’s age. The High Court made no comment on the latter point.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the accused is guilty of having sexual intercourse with PW12 ‘without her consent’ (as per Clause 2 of Section 375 IPC).
• Is consent given by a woman believing a man’s vow to marry her sufficient to exclude the crime of rape?
• If it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual contact against her will?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

• The defense contended that Deelip Singh should not be convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• They argued that the evidence given by the prosecution was circumstantial and insufficient to prove the appellant’s involvement in the crime. The defense claimed that the occurrence occurred during a sudden altercation or encounter, with no premeditation or intent to commit murder. They stated that the victim’s death was due to an unintentional escalation of the incident. 
• Furthermore, the defense questioned the veracity and consistency of the eyewitnesses’ accounts, claiming that the prosecution failed to show a direct link between the appellant and the crime. The defense further claimed that there was no direct evidence that the appellant had the intent to kill, hence the murder accusation was not applicable. They recommended that the appellant be convicted of a lesser felony, such as manslaughter, if at all.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

• • The prosecution contended that Deelip Singh’s acts were obviously compatible with the crime of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 
  • They argued that the appellant’s intent to cause death or grave harm was clear from the circumstances of the act. The prosecution stressed the consistency and credibility of the witnesses who testified about the appellant’s role in the incident. 
  • They further maintained that the appellant’s actions and the employment of a weapon in the execution of the crime indicated a purposeful intent to commit murder rather than an accident. 
  • The prosecution rejected the defense’s argument of lack of intent, claiming that the events leading up to the victim’s death proved the appellant’s deliberate choice to inflict injury. They also stated that there was no evidence to support the defense’s claim of an unplanned escalation; hence, the appellant should be convicted of murder.

JUDGMENT

Deelip Singh, the appellant, was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC of raping the victim, a juvenile girl, who claimed that the appellant promised to marry her, causing her to consent to sexual intercourse. The conviction was challenged, expressing concerns about the victim’s age, the nature of consent, and the accused’s motive in making the promise of marriage.

The Court first emphasized that a mere commitment to marry does not constitute a’ misconception of fact’ under Section 90 of the IPC. However, if the accused makes a deliberate misrepresentation in order to extract permission without intending to marry, such consent is invalid. The Court noted the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Jayanti Rani Panda and the observations in Uday’s case to emphasize the necessity of establishing the accused’s lack of intent from the start.

The Court emphasized that while a false promise to marry is not a fact under the IPC, the prosecution bears the burden of showing the absence of consent, as established in Uday’s case. The victim’s evidence was analyzed, and her consent was deemed voluntary, given her awareness of the consequences of the action. The victim was affected by the promise of marriage, but there was no solid evidence that the promise was fake from the start. It appears that the accused had first planned to marry but was later swayed by his family’s objections.

The Court decided that the trial court’s findings were perverse, as they failed to consider material evidence. The conviction was overturned, and the appeal was accepted. Conviction and sentence overturned; appeal granted.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed the essential question of consent in the context of a promise to marry, as well as the consequences of a false promise in sexual offenses under Section 375 of the IPC. Deelip Singh, the appellant, was accused of raping the victim, who said she gave her agreement in exchange for a promise of marriage. The central legal issue was whether a vow to marry made without true purpose could invalidate the victim’s consent and so constitute rape.

The Court reiterated the idea that a mere promise to marry, absent further components of deception, does not constitute a “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the IPC. However, if the promise were made only to trick the victim into sexual intercourse with no intention of marrying, the consent would be void. This principle is based on the idea that consent obtained by fraud or deception is not legally valid.

The Court cited recent case law, including Uday’s and Jayanti Rani Panda’s, to underline the need to determine the accused’s purpose at the time the promise was made. The prosecution must prove that the accused never planned to marry the victim from the start in order to invalidate the consent.

After reviewing the facts, the Court found no clear proof that the accused had no intention of marrying the victim from the outset. The victim’s testimony, which revealed she was aware of the potential implications of her actions, implied that her consent was voluntary. Despite the victim’s strong conviction of the accused’s promise, there was insufficient evidence to prove that it was fake from the start. The Court also considered the possibility that the accused meant to marry, but familial circumstances prevented it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s conclusions were defective because they did not take into account all relevant evidence, especially the victim’s awareness and willing participation in the act. The Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to show that the accused never meant to marry the victim, which would have invalidated her consent. The lawsuit looked to be about a breach of promise rather than false misrepresentation. As a result, the Court reversed the conviction and granted the appeal, underlining the need to conduct a thorough review of the evidence and the circumstances in which consent was provided.