“ 20.Thus from the above Judgments, we can see that though the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deelip Singh's case (cited supra) felt that Section 90 IPC cannot be construed as exhaustive definition of consent for the purpose of IPC, however, in the later portion of the said Judgment discussed the legal aspects bearing on the interpretation of the term consent with reference to Section 90 IPC. The subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court also considered the validity of the consent of the victim only with reference to Section 90 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that misrepresentation or false promise made in certain cases may be regarded as leading to misconception of fact. In Pramod's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed u p legal principles which we have extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for a consent to be vitiated because of a false promise to marry two conditions have to satisfied. Firstly, the promise of marriage must have been a false promise given in bad faith with no intention of fulfilling it. Secondly, the false promise must bear a direct nexus to the women’s decision to engage in the sexual act. In Maheshwar Tigga's case
