A, aged about 49 years was posted as a Senior Officer in the office of Chief Architect Haryana. B, aged about 21 years was holding a diploma in Architecture. She had met A in his office for a government job. A had promised to do so. Thereafter, on two occasion A had sexual intercourse with B at his residence, which was situated on the first floor of the building.After that, on 13-1-1997, B had gone to the office of A, in connection with her job. A had told B that her appointment letter was lying at his residence. A had asked B to dccompany him to his residence, where A had sexual intercourse with her. Two persons, who were present on the ground floor of the building were attracted when an alarm was raised by B. A was caught hold of by them. B was also rescued by them from there. On a telephonic call given by one of those persons the police had reached within five minutes. The appointment letter of B was taken into possession from the pocket of trousers of A. Whether any offence has been committed by A?Cite similar case laws.

Yes, based on the facts you've described, A is likely to be held liable for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860), especially considering the misuse of authority and inducement under false promise of job/employment.

---

Legal Analysis:

1. Section 375 and 376 of the IPC – Rape:

Under pre-2013 law, rape required lack of consent, but after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, Section 375 was expanded to include situations where consent is obtained under a misconception of fact, including false promises of marriage or job.

• Explanation 2 to Section 375 IPC: Consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid consent.

• In this case, B gave consent for sexual intercourse under the belief that A would arrange a government job, and A abused his position of power to obtain that consent. The last incident clearly shows lack of consent, where she raised an alarm, was rescued, and A was caught red-handed.

2. Section 493 IPC (Earlier considered in such cases):

Previously, where marriage was falsely promised or pretended, Section 493 (cohabitation by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) was invoked. However, in this case, since no such marital promise is mentioned, Section 493 may not apply.

---

Relevant Case Law:

1. Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46

• The Supreme Court held that if it is shown that the promise to marry was not false from the beginning, then consent is valid.

• But if the promise was false at inception, and given only to obtain consent for sex, then it amounts to rape.

2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675

• It was held that misconception of fact includes a false promise of marriage or job, and such consent is not valid, amounting to rape.

3. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191

• Differentiates between breach of promise and false promise. In your case, the promise of job was never intended to be fulfilled, making it a false inducement, not merely a breach.

---

Conclusion:

• A has committed the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC, especially in the last incident where B was forcibly confined and raised alarm.

• The false promise of job makes earlier acts potentially fall under the same definition, as the consent was vitiated by deception.

• Additionally, criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) and possibly wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC) may also apply.

---