Question

‘A’, a man, promises ‘B’, a woman that he will marry her if she has sexual intercourse with him. ‘B’ agrees, but after having sexual intercourse, ‘A’ flees and never contacts ‘B’ again. In the given situation, which statement is true?

• A. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact.
• B. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under fear of injury.
• C. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under undue influence.
• D. Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception or fear of injury
• A. A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury
• B. The person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury
• C. A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury and the person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury.
• D. A person agrees to do an act without having regard to the consequences of fear of injury or misconception of fact.
• A. To emphasise on the factors that vitiate consent.
• B. To emphasise on the point of view of victim or the person who gives consent.
• C. To emphasise on the point of view of the person who receives consent
• D. To emphasise on the non-exhaustive scope of definition of consent.
• A. Consent for sexual intercourse was received knowing that the consent is given under misconception of fact.
• B. Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception of fact or fear of injury.
• C. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact and received misconception of fact.
• D. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact and received misconception of fact.
• A. Misconception of fact vitiates consent
• B. Fear of injury vitiates consent
• C. Misconception of fact obviates the necessity of consent
• D. Fear of injury is analogous to coercion

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct Answer is (A):Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact.

Answer 2

The facts describe a classic case of a promise to marry made only to obtain sex, with no real contact or intention afterwards. To answer this, each option needs to be checked against the two grounds named in Section 90 of the IPC: fear of injury and misconception of fact.

1. Consent given under misconception of fact: This fits the facts. B agreed to sex because she believed A would marry her. A never intended to keep that promise and vanished right after, which shows the promise was false from the start. B's belief in a fact that was never true, that A would marry her, is exactly what Section 90 calls a misconception of fact. This is the correct option.
2. Consent given under fear of injury: Fear of injury means the person agreed because they were threatened with harm. Nothing in the facts suggests A threatened B or that she agreed out of fear. This option does not match the facts.
3. Consent given under undue influence: Undue influence is a concept from contract law, used when one party dominates the will of another, for example through a position of authority or trust. Section 90 of the IPC does not use this ground at all; the two grounds it recognises are fear of injury and misconception of fact. Since undue influence is not even a Section 90 category, this option is wrong.
4. Consent given without any misconception or fear of injury: This would be true only if B knew A was lying and still agreed, or if A's promise had been genuine. Neither is the case here since A had no intention of marrying B and abandoned her right after. This option is incorrect.

Since A's promise was false at the time it was made and B agreed only because she believed it, the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact.

Therefore, the correct answer is consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact.

Answer 3

The correct Answer is (C):A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury and the person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury.

Answer 4

This question asks for the passage's own description of when an act is treated as done with consent. The passage explains Section 90 by breaking it into two parts, one looking at the person giving consent and one looking at the person receiving it, and says both parts must be satisfied together.

1. A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury: This captures only the first half of the passage's test, the side that looks at the person giving consent. It leaves out the second half about the person receiving the consent, so it is incomplete on its own.
2. The person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury: This captures only the second half, the side that looks at the receiver of consent. Taken alone, it ignores whether the giver was actually free of fear or misconception, so it too is incomplete.
3. A person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury and the person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury: This combines both halves into a single cumulative test, matching the passage's own statement that the requirements of both parts should be satisfied together. This is the correct option.
4. A person agrees to do an act without having regard to the consequences of fear of injury or misconception of fact: This option is loosely worded and does not track the passage's actual two-part structure; it does not separately address both the giver's and the receiver's side, so it does not match the passage.

Since the passage explicitly says both parts of the test must hold together, the option that joins both halves is the accurate one.

Therefore, the correct answer is a person agrees to do an act without misconception of fact or fear of injury and the person to whom agreement is signified has no reason to believe that the agreement is being given under misconception of fact or fear of injury.

Answer 5

The correct Answer is (D):To emphasise on the non-exhaustive scope of definition of consent

Answer 6

The question asks why Section 90 is written in negative language, telling us what consent is NOT rather than listing what consent IS. The answer lies in what the passage says right after describing this negative style.

1. To emphasise on the factors that vitiate consent: The passage does list fear of injury and misconception of fact as the factors that destroy consent, but this is simply a description of what Section 90 covers, not the reason the passage gives for using negative wording specifically. This option restates content rather than answering why the drafting choice was made.
2. To emphasise on the point of view of victim or the person who gives consent: The passage does mention that the first part of Section 90 is from the victim's point of view, but this describes the structure of the two-part test, not the purpose of choosing negative terminology as a whole.
3. To emphasise on the point of view of the person who receives consent: Similarly, this describes only the second part of the test, the accused's side, not the reason behind the negative style of drafting.
4. To emphasise on the non-exhaustive scope of definition of consent: The passage directly states that Section 90 cannot be read as an exhaustive definition of consent, and that the normal, wider concept of consent is not meant to be excluded. Writing the provision negatively, only naming what destroys consent, leaves room for courts to recognise other situations that affect consent beyond just these two grounds. This is the correct option.

The passage's own words tie the negative phrasing directly to keeping the definition of consent open-ended rather than closed and complete.

Therefore, the correct answer is to emphasise on the non-exhaustive scope of definition of consent.

Answer 7

The correct Answer is (B):Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception of fact or fear of injury.

Answer 8

This fact pattern needs to be compared with an earlier one where the man vanished right after the act. Here, X actually attempted to keep his promise by trying to convince his family, and the marriage fell through because of resistance from his family, not because X never intended to marry Y. Each option needs to be checked against this detail.

1. Consent for sexual intercourse was received knowing that the consent is given under misconception of fact: This would require X to have known, at the time of the promise, that he could not or would not marry Y. Since X tried to convince his family and only backed out after failing, there is no basis to say he knew the promise was hollow from the start. This option does not fit.
2. Consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception of fact or fear of injury: X's promise was genuine when made, and Y's consent was based on a real intention, not a false one. The marriage failed later due to family opposition, an external event, not because X lied to obtain consent. Since there was no fear of injury either, this option correctly describes the situation. This is the correct option.
3. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact and received misconception of fact: This describes both sides being aware of a false belief, which does not match a genuine promise that later could not be honoured due to circumstances beyond X's initial intention.
4. Consent for sexual intercourse was given under misconception of fact and received misconception of fact (repeated): This option repeats the previous one and fails for the same reason; a promise made in good faith that fails later due to family opposition does not amount to a misconception of fact at the time consent was given.

Because X's intention to marry was genuine when the promise was made, and the failure of the marriage came from a later, external cause rather than deceit, Section 90 has nothing to vitiate here.

Therefore, the correct answer is consent for sexual intercourse was given without any misconception of fact or fear of injury.

Answer 9

The correct Answer is (C):Misconception of fact obviates the necessity of consent

Answer 10

This question asks which statement does NOT match the passage. Each option needs to be checked against what the passage actually says about misconception of fact, fear of injury, and coercion.

1. Misconception of fact vitiates consent: The passage states that consent given under a misconception of fact is not consent at all, which is exactly what vitiating consent means. This statement is true, so it is not the answer.
2. Fear of injury vitiates consent: The passage equally states that consent given under fear of injury is not consent at all. This statement is also true, so it is not the answer.
3. Misconception of fact obviates the necessity of consent: Obviating the necessity of consent would mean consent is no longer needed at all, which is not what the passage says. The passage says misconception of fact destroys the validity of consent that was given; it does not say consent becomes unnecessary. Since this statement misstates the passage, it is the one that is NOT true, making it the correct option.
4. Fear of injury is analogous to coercion: The passage directly says the two grounds in Section 90 are analogous to coercion and mistake of fact. This statement is true, so it is not the answer.

Three of the four statements restate what the passage says accurately, while one distorts the meaning of misconception of fact by suggesting it removes the need for consent altogether, rather than just invalidating consent that was obtained through it.

Therefore, the correct answer is misconception of fact obviates the necessity of consent, since this is the statement that is NOT true.