Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case

“Consent between adults in a voluntary relationship, without inducement or deception, does not attract Section 376 IPC” – In a significant judgment reaffirming the nuanced legal position on rape allegations based on a false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court acquitted Sandeep Jha @ Sandy, setting aside his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while allowing the appeal, held that the prosecution failed to establish that the promise to marry was false from inception, and the sexual relationship in question was consensual.

The High Court decisively ruled: “Mere breach of a promise, without proof that the promise was false at inception, does not constitute rape.”

The Court found glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version, lack of corroborative evidence, and admitted consensual nature of the physical relationship between the parties.

“Sexual relationship between consenting adults, absent forcible conduct or inducement, cannot invite criminal liability under Section 376”

The appellant had been convicted by the Trial Court in 2017 and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000, ₹90,000 of which was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC.

The prosecutrix, a resident of West Bengal and then a college student, had alleged that the accused established sexual relations with her on the false assurance of marriage, and later disclosed that he was already married. The allegation was that the appellant first contacted her after a family function in Bihar, stayed in touch through calls and messages, and brought her to Delhi where physical intimacy occurred.

However, the High Court dismantled this version, emphasizing that the consent was not obtained by fraud and that no deception was proved at the inception of the relationship.

“No evidence of deception—No CDRs, no train tickets, no corroboration of her travel or stay”

Justice Ohri highlighted the serious evidentiary deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:

“Though the prosecutrix claimed repeated calls and messages, no phones were seized, and no call detail records were placed on record. No documentary proof of her travel from Kolkata to Delhi was presented.”

Further, the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant took her to Mange Ram Park, Rohini, where they lived together and engaged in consensual physical relations. She also claimed she later called her relatives using a neighbor’s phone, but the investigating agency failed to trace or examine the neighbour, verify the rented accommodation, or produce any witnesses from the alleged locality.

“Common relatives knew of appellant’s marriage—Possibility that prosecutrix was aware cannot be ruled out”

One of the pivotal issues in the case was whether the prosecutrix was deceived into believing that the appellant was unmarried. The defence, supported by cross-examination of relatives (PW-11 and PW-12), argued that the families were related and that the prosecutrix or her relatives knew about the appellant’s prior marriage.

The Court agreed: “The prosecutrix and the appellant have common relatives. Testimonies of PW-11 and PW-12 clearly revealed that these relatives were aware of the appellant’s marriage, and the possibility that the prosecutrix was aware of his marital status cannot be ruled out.”

Crucially, the Court noted that the prosecutrix never claimed that the appellant promised to dissolve his earlier marriage, nor did she allege forcible physical contact.

“No clean medical evidence—Prosecutrix refused internal exam, FSL report inconclusive”

The medical evidence also failed to support the prosecution’s case. The prosecutrix refused an internal medical examination, and the FSL report did not yield any incriminating findings.

“The medical evidence failed to corroborate the prosecution version. The FSL report was not helpful, and the MLC showed refusal to undergo internal exam.”

This, combined with her admission of a consensual relationship, substantially weakened the charge of rape.

“Consent was not vitiated—Absence of inducement or coercion makes sexual act non-criminal”

Justice Ohri carefully analyzed the requirement of vitiated consent under Section 376 IPC, stating:“There is no allegation of inducement that vitiated her consent. Sexual relationship between consenting adults does not fall within the ambit of rape, especially where deception is not proved.”

The Court relied on long-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, the one that favours the accused must prevail.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled: “Benefit of doubt in the present case enures to the appellant. The impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside, the present appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted.”

The conviction dated 08.08.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court were quashed. The appellant’s personal bond was cancelled, and surety discharged.

Before parting, the Court also acknowledged the assistance of the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Shantanu Agarwal, appointed to represent the victim.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025