The Delhi High Court has ruled that a long-term consensual physical relationship cannot automatically be considered as one based solely on a false promise of marriage. The verdict, delivered by Justice Jasmeet Singh, overturned the conviction of a man previously sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 366 (kidnapping) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
The court emphasized that for a conviction under rape laws due to a false promise of marriage, there must be clear and undeniable proof that the promise was deceitful from the start and that the woman consented solely due to that false promise.
Case Background
The case originated when a father lodged an FIR, claiming his 20-year-old daughter had gone missing and was suspected to be with the appellant, who was 18 and a half years old at the time. They were later found in Haryana, and the appellant was arrested.
Read Also:- TCS Manager Manav Sharma's Tragic Demise: A Call to Address Men's Mental Health Amid Marital Strife
The prosecution argued that the physical relationship between the accused and the woman was established based on a promise of marriage, which the accused allegedly never intended to fulfill. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to a decade in prison.
Justice Jasmeet Singh analyzed the evidence and concluded that the relationship was consensual and based on mutual love and affection, rather than coercion or deception.
"If a promise to marry is made in good faith but cannot be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances, it does not amount to a false promise warranting a rape conviction under Section 376 IPC," observed the Court.
Further, the Court stressed that a long-term consensual relationship cannot be presumed to be based purely on a marriage promise.
“If a consensual relationship continues for an extended period, it cannot be said that the consent was purely based on the promise to marry.”
The Court cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471), where the Supreme Court highlighted the misuse of criminal law in cases where a long-term relationship turned sour, leading to allegations of rape on false pretext of marriage.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Delhi University’s Plea Against Revealing PM Modi’s Degree Records
The judgment referenced Section 90 IPC, which invalidates consent given under misconception of fact. The Court differentiated between a false promise to marry and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to circumstances.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) laid down a crucial test:
“If an accused made a false promise to marry with an intent to deceive and only to satisfy his lust, such consent is vitiated. But if the relationship was built on love, mutual consent, and an intention to marry, a subsequent inability to marry does not constitute rape.”
Based on the evidence and testimony, the High Court found that the woman was in a consensual relationship with the accused for over a year. There was no proof that the accused never intended to marry her from the outset. The prosecutrix was also aware of the challenges in their marriage due to caste differences. The trial court’s conclusion that the relationship was built on a false promise of marriage was not supported by strong evidence.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: No Presumption of Corruption Without Proof of Bribe Demand and Acceptance
As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released immediately.
However, the Court cautioned the accused, stating:
"The appellant shall ensure that neither he nor his family interferes in the life of the prosecutrix or contacts her in any way—through WhatsApp, mobile, or any other means."
Title: SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE
