The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a rape allegation based solely on a delayed or unfulfilled promise to marry cannot be sustained when the relationship between the parties was long-standing and consensual.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the revision petition in Raj Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P., noted:
“There is not even a single averment made in the complaint that the accused had refused to marry the victim or that the marriage between them has become impossible. The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry.”
Background of the Case
The complainant and Raj Kumar Sharma were classmates and began their relationship in 2014 with mutual agreement to marry after 2-3 years, once the accused’s family completed construction of their house. The engagement took place in 2015. During this time, the accused visited the complainant frequently, and they entered into a physical relationship.
Although the wedding was initially set for 2017, it was postponed due to a family tragedy. Later, the marriage was again planned for 2019 and then shifted to 2021. In the meantime, the complainant alleged that the accused’s family demanded ₹5 lakh and a vehicle as dowry.
Police Investigation and Trial
An FIR was filed, and the police collected evidence, including blood and semen samples. While there was no evidence of physical violence, investigators found human blood on the complainant’s clothes and semen on the accused’s slide.
The prosecution alleged that the accused misled the complainant with a false promise of marriage to engage in sexual activity and that his family demanded dowry. As a result, the trial court framed charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 read with 34 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Petitioner's Arguments
Raj Kumar contested the charges, stating:
“The complainant was 30 years old, educated, and acted out of free will. Our relationship was consensual and lasted for more than five years. The allegations are baseless and do not amount to criminal charges.”
The defence also highlighted that no evidence linked the accused personally to the dowry demand or that the money was ever paid.
High Court’s Observations
The Court emphasized that:
“In a relationship of such long duration, it's hard to determine that physical intimacy was solely due to a promise of marriage.”
Read Also:- Section 377 IPC Not Applicable to Consensual Acts Between Husband and Wife: Delhi High Court
It also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra:
“A false promise must be clearly proven as the sole reason for consent. If the relationship continued for years, the promise alone cannot be blamed.”
Justice Kainthla concluded that there was no material proof showing the accused had refused to marry or that he made a false promise with malicious intent. Regarding dowry, the statements from witnesses did not prove that Raj Kumar directly demanded money.
“The learned Trial Court was not justified in framing the charges under Section 376(2)(n), 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”
The Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sharma v/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Revision No.524 of 2024
Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
For the appellant : Mr. B.L. Soni, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General
