“The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act,” the court observed while relying on settled Supreme Court precedents.

The case arose from allegations that the complainant and the accused, both residents of the same village in Bihar’s West Champaran district, remained in a physical relationship for nearly a year after he allegedly promised to marry her.

The woman later became pregnant and claimed that the accused refused to marry her and instead married another woman, following which she lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on January 15, 2009. While the trial court convicted him of rape, the high court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the promise of marriage was false from the very inception of the relationship.

Justice Purnendu Singh referred to the Supreme Court’s caution against treating every failed relationship as a criminal offence. (AI-enhanced image)

Year-long relationship

According to the prosecution, the complainant’s father worked as a labourer outside Bihar while her mother also worked in agricultural fields and at other people’s houses, leaving her alone at home for long periods.

Taking advantage of the situation, the accused, who was her co-villager, allegedly started visiting her house and established physical relations with her after assuring that he would marry her. The relationship allegedly continued for about a year, resulting in her pregnancy.

The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the accused ultimately refused to marry her and solemnised his marriage with another woman.

‘Relationship consensual’

Appearing for the appellant, the amicus curiae argued that the complainant was admittedly a major and fully capable of understanding the consequences of her actions.

It was submitted that the relationship continued for nearly one year without any allegation of force or coercion and that there was no evidence showing the accused had made a fraudulent promise of marriage from the outset.

The defence contended that a subsequent refusal to marry, by itself, could not constitute rape in the absence of proof that the promise itself was dishonest when it was made.

Medical evidence

The high court examined the evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, her parents, the investigating officer and the doctor who medically examined her. The medical officer testified that the complainant was around 19 years old and was carrying a pregnancy of about eight weeks at the time of examination. The doctor did not find any recent signs of sexual assault.

The court also noted that village witnesses largely deposed about a panchayat convened after the complainant became pregnant, where efforts were made to persuade the accused to marry her. It observed that the prosecution failed to establish a scientific link between the accused and the pregnancy, observing that the DNA profile of the foetus had not been matched with the accused’s DNA.

In the absence of such scientific evidence, the court held that no conclusive finding could be recorded that the accused was responsible for the pregnancy or that he had established sexual relations resulting in the conception. It observed that the prosecution’s failure to produce the best available evidence created a significant gap in its case and held that the benefit arising from this deficiency must necessarily go to the accused.

Court on false promise vs breach of promise

• Referring extensively to Supreme Court decisions, the high court reiterated that there is a clear legal distinction between a false promise to marry and the subsequent breach of a genuine promise.
• It observed that consent is vitiated only where the promise to marry was false from the very beginning, made solely to obtain sexual consent, and directly influenced the woman’s decision to enter into the physical relationship.
• Consent itself must be free, voluntary, and uninfluenced by fear or misconception of fact. Section 90 IPC provides that consent obtained under a misconception of fact is not true consent, the court stated.
• It added that a mere failure to honour a promise to marry or the eventual breakdown of a relationship cannot automatically amount to rape.
• The apex court has consistently held that if a promise to marry is made with no intention of being fulfilled, but solely to induce a woman to engage in sexual intercourse, it constitutes a “misconception of fact” that vitiates consent and sexual intercourse carried out under the false pretext may constitute the offence of rape.

Warning against criminalising consensual relations

Justice Singh referred to the Supreme Court’s caution against treating every failed relationship as a criminal offence. He observed that where adults voluntarily continue a consensual relationship over a prolonged period, it cannot automatically be presumed that every act of sexual intercourse occurred solely because of a promise of marriage.

It stressed that courts must distinguish between deliberate deception employed to obtain consent and genuine relationships that later fail due to changing circumstances, ensuring that criminal law is not invoked to settle personal disputes while continuing to protect women against fraudulent inducement.

Conviction set aside

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the high court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused never intended to marry the complainant when the alleged promise was made or that her consent was obtained solely because of such a promise.

Holding that the relationship was consensual and that the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction for rape were not established, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, and acquitted the accused.