For Rape Conviction, There Must Be Clear Proof That Physical Relations Were Solely Based on a Deceptive Promise of Marriage: Delhi High Court

In a significant judgment Delhi High Court acquitted Shivam Pandey, who was convicted for rape under Section 376 IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove that the physical relationship was established solely on a false promise of marriage. The Court observed that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual, and there was no evidence to show that the appellant had never intended to marry her from the very beginning.

Setting aside the impugned judgment dated September 13, 2023, and the sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on December 8, 2023, the Court ruled that "a mere breach of a promise to marry, without proof of fraudulent intent at the outset, cannot be equated with rape."

"Love Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized Unless Promise of Marriage Was Made With Fraudulent Intent"

The case stemmed from an FIR registered on November 3, 2019, by the prosecutrix’s father, alleging that his 20-year-old daughter had gone missing with the appellant, who was 18 and a half years old at the time. The appellant was arrested after the couple was found in Dharuhera, Haryana. The prosecution claimed that the appellant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court ruled that "where two adults willingly engage in a relationship over a substantial period of time, the mere failure to marry does not amount to rape unless it is shown that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning."

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, the Court reiterated that "there is a clear distinction between a mere breach of a promise to marry and a false promise made solely to induce physical relations. In the latter case, the accused must have had mala fide motives from the outset."

"Prosecutrix Was an Adult, Aware of Relationship Risks" – Court Rejects Lack of Consent Argument
The Court carefully examined the prosecutrix’s testimony and found that she had been in a relationship with the appellant since 2018, had accompanied him on multiple occasions to hotels, and had engaged in physical relations over an extended period. The Court noted that the prosecutrix was three years older than the appellant, fully aware of the caste differences that made marriage difficult, yet willingly continued the relationship.

The Court ruled that "where a prosecutrix voluntarily engages in a physical relationship knowing the social and personal challenges involved, it cannot later be claimed that the relationship was based on coercion or fraud. The consent given in such cases is informed and conscious."

"No Evidence That Appellant Never Intended to Marry" – Court Finds Prosecution Case Lacking

The Court emphasized that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the appellant never had any intention to marry the prosecutrix at the time of establishing physical relations. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had led the prosecutrix into a false sense of security merely to exploit her.

The Court referred to Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471), in which the Supreme Court ruled that "if a man and woman are in a prolonged relationship, and the woman knowingly engages in physical intimacy, the absence of marriage later does not automatically vitiate consent unless it is proved that the man had a deceptive intent from the very beginning."

The Court concluded that "the prosecutrix and appellant were in a consensual relationship, and there is no material to suggest that the appellant had no intention of marrying her. A failed relationship does not amount to rape under the law."

Observing that "criminal law should not be used as a tool to penalize personal relationships that do not culminate in marriage," the Court ruled that the findings of the Trial Court regarding the false promise of marriage were not supported by the evidence.

The Court ruled that "to convict someone for rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was made solely to exploit the woman and was never intended to be fulfilled. The facts of the present case do not support such an inference."

"Prosecutrix Does Not Want Any Further Interference in Her Life" – Court Issues Protective Order

Noting that the prosecutrix, present in court, stated that she does not want any interference in her life from the appellant, the Court explicitly directed the appellant to ensure that neither he nor his family members attempt to contact or interfere in the life of the prosecutrix through any mode of communication.

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that "the benefit of doubt must accrue to the appellant. The conviction and sentence are accordingly set aside, and the appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case."

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that "consensual relationships cannot be criminalized merely because they do not culminate in marriage. A rape conviction cannot be sustained unless it is proved that physical relations were induced solely through deception."

By setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant, the Court has emphasized that "criminal law should not be used as a means to settle personal disputes arising from failed relationships." This ruling reinforces the need for courts to carefully assess the nature of consent and distinguish between false promises and broken relationships.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2025