A ‘consent’ given under fear of injury is not a ‘consent’ in the eyes of law. We are not persuaded to accept the solitary statement that, at the time of the first alleged offence, ‘consent’ was obtained under fear of injury.

A ‘consent’ given under a misconception of fact is no ‘consent’ in the eyes of law. But, the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence. It hardly needs any elaboration that, the ‘consent’ was a conscious and informed choice made after due deliberation. It was spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious, positive action not to protest.

There was no false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties.

– Hon’ble Justice Navin Sinha, Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand, [Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020].