Consent known to be given under fear or misconception
Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with 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 misconcep The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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; or
Consent of insane person.
Consent of insane person.-if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
Consent of child.
Consent of child.-unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
Section 90, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 28 Consent known to be given under fear or misconception Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-4.pdf 2019-04-09. Crl A 629/2019. M.R. Shah. DATE-CHECK flagged 2018-10-10 HC / 2013-04-28/29 incident dates (false positive); body is the named 9 Apr 2019 reportable. IPC 90: consent to sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage made from inception is a misconception of fact, not a mere later breach of promise (Deepak Gulati, Yedla Srinivasa Rao, Naushad). Map ipc 90 + BNS 28 successor (near-identical 0.9398). Do not pad ipc 375/376 (already filled) or IEA 114A.
On this section: Consent to sexual intercourse obtained by a false promise of marriage made from inception is a misconception of fact under s.90, not a mere later breach of promise (Anurag Soni).
-
State of U. P vs Naushad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Consent obtained by a man from a woman through a false promise of marriage, which he never intended to fulfill from the inception, constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC. Such consent is vitiated by misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC and is not voluntary consent in law. The absence of physical resistance by the victim does not negate rape when consent was fraudulently obtained through deception. A woman's body is not a plaything for a man to satisfy his lust by fooling her into consenting to sexual intercourse.
On this section: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. The Court applied this section to establish that the victim's consent was vitiated because it was given under misconception of fact (false promise of marriage). The Court held that the accused knew or had reason to believe that his false promise was the basis for her consent.
-
Kaini Rajan vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In rape cases, while the testimony of the prosecutrix commands great respect and acceptability, if circumstances exist which cast doubt on the veracity of the victim's evidence, courts must be cautious. Rape convictions cannot be based solely on uncorroborated victim testimony when multiple circumstances (such as delay in FIR filing, prior acquaintance with accused, lack of resistance or witnesses at a public place and time, suspicious parental behavior, and subsequent consensual relations) collectively create reasonable doubt about whether the alleged act was truly non-consensual. The standard of proof requires not just reliance on victim's word but also absence of significant circumstances that undermine credibility.
On this section: Defines what is not consent; Court referenced to explain that promise to marry does not create misconception of fact unless accused never intended marriage from inception
-
Hasibuddin Mondal ORS vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Family members cannot be prosecuted for offences under Sections 493, 376, or 313 of the IPC when the alleged sexual acts and deception are attributed solely to the principal accused and the ingredients of such crimes do not apply to the relatives.
On this section: Consent given under misconception of fact.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… has failed to establish that, from the very outset, the accused never intended to marry the prosecutrix or that he induced her into a relationship based on false promises of marriage. Furthermore, the consent of the prosecutrix to engage in sexual relations cannot be deemed vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence does not indicate that the appellant lured or coerced the prosecutrix by means of deception, nor does it demonstrate that her consent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. In that view of the matter, the offence under Section 376 of the IPC is not made out in the …
Questions about Section 90
What have the courts held on Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code?
Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (09 Apr 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Consent to sexual intercourse obtained by a false promise of marriage made from inception is a misconception of fact under s.90, not a mere later breach of promise (Anurag Soni). Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 90, section 90 IPC, section 90 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh (09 Apr 2019).
What should I read with Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 28 (Consent known to be given under fear or misconception), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 90, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.