The Gujarat High Court has held that a rape prosecution based on an alleged false promise of marriage becomes difficult to sustain when the evidence indicates that two adults entered into a live-in relationship through a mutually agreed written arrangement and later decided to separate through another agreement.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of rape by his former live-in partner.
Background
According to the prosecution, the complainant and the accused had been in a relationship and began living together under a written agreement dated August 14, 2019. She alleged that the accused had physical relations with her against her wishes on the promise of marriage and assaulted her when she refused his demands.
On January 29, 2020, the couple executed another agreement cancelling their earlier arrangement and recording their decision to live separately. The complainant lodged a police complaint the following day, alleging sexual assault and physical violence.
The Sessions Court acquitted the accused on January 31, 2026, after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant subsequently challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
The High Court examined both agreements, the complainant’s medical history and the statements of witnesses, including her father and uncle. It noted that the first agreement recorded her willingness to live with the accused and contemplated marriage after he attained the legally prescribed marriageable age.
The Bench observed that the subsequent agreement also recorded the couple’s decision to separate voluntarily, without harassment or threats. It further noted that the original agreements had not been seized during the investigation and that the prosecution had not established that they were obtained through deception.
The Court observed:
“When two adults, after living together for several months under a written arrangement that itself declared free consent, mutually put an end to that arrangement by a further written instrument that again affirms the absence of coercion, the prosecution case that the relationship was throughout the product of a false promise of marriage and of repeated force becomes difficult to sustain.”
The Bench also clarified that the agreement promising marriage after the accused attained the marriageable age was not legally enforceable. However, it distinguished an alleged dishonest promise made from the beginning to obtain sexual relations from a relationship that subsequently breaks down.
The Court stated:
“The present case is not one of a promise to marry made with a dishonest intention from the very inception, so as to obtain sexual favours under the guise of such a promise.”
It further observed that the duration of a live-in relationship and the parties’ conduct could be relevant when assessing whether the relationship was consensual.
Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the Sessions Court’s assessment of the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: XYZ Victim v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 2273 of 2026
Judges: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani
Decision Date: October 21, 2026
