SC: Misconception of fact u/s 90 IPC has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand pronounced that under Section 90 IPC, 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 and cannot be spread over years.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

Circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 9)

Under Section 90 IPC, 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 and cannot be spread over years. (Para 14)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_28-Sep-2020

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

1 thought on “SC: Misconception of fact u/s 90 IPC has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *