Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 365 and 90 - Rape and consensual sex - Distinction between - Allegation that appellant enticed the prosecutrix, wrongfully confined her and had sexual intercourse with her in lieu of his promise to marry her - Conviction of appellant by Courts below u/ss. 365 & 376 - Challenge to - Held: In a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception - Distinction between mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise - An accused can be convicted for rape only if his intention was mala fide, and he had clandestine motives -s.90 IPC cannot be called into aid to pardon the act of the girl in entirety; and fasten criminal liability on the accused, unless the court is assured that from the very beginning, the accused had never really intended to marry her - In the instant case, the prosecutrix had left her home voluntarily, of her own free will to get married to the appellant - She was 19 years of age at the relevant time and was, hence, capable of understanding the complications and issues surrounding her marriage to the appellant - Prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the appellant on a number of occasions and made no complaints to anyone - In fact, while she was proceeding with the appellant so that the two of them could get married in the court, they were apprehended by the police - Allegation of ''false promise of marriage" raised by the prosecutrix, thus, has no basis -Charge of deceit /rape cannot be leveled against the appellant - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt - His conviction set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 114-A.