Allegation Of False Promise To Marry Not Established: MP High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Of Accused Acquainted With Prosecutrix On Matrimony Site

In a recent case, Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed a rape conviction on the ground that there was no cogent proof that the consent for sexual relations was obtained by giving a false promise of marriage. The court also observed that no plausible conclusion can be drawn that the sexual liaison occurred under the misconception of fact such as the promise of marriage.

The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also went on to note that there has never been a specific denial by the accused to marry the prosecutrix, as evident from the WhatsApp chats between them. Moreover, it is undisputed that the prosecutrix has already married whereas the accused remains unmarried.

“….it is crystal clear that the physical relations between the prosecutrix and appellant were made with consent. Certainly, marriage was not consummated between them due to some unforeseen circumstances. However, since the appellant himself has not specifically declined regarding marriage with prosecutrix, the allegation of false promise cannot be established…”, the bench sitting at Indore added.

The court also made a detailed analysis of other factors such as the age of the prosecutrix, the voluntary nature of the conversation that transpired between the prosecutrix and the accused after both of them met through a matrimonial website, and the lack of any evidence or deposition by prosecution witnesses about forcible relations in the hotel room concerned.

“…She herself met with the appellant on her wish and started whatsapp chating and video calls. She herself produced her ID Card before the Hotel Management…. No alarm or crying sound was raised by the prosecutrix. She had not made a complaint to her parents or any other person before lodging First Information Report”, the court opined after examining the evidence on record to conclude that the prosecutrix did not consent to sexual relations solely because she was given a promise of marriage.

Pertinently, the conversations between both parties do not show anything to the effect that the accused expressly declined to marry the prosecutrix. There was even an instance where the prosecutrix asked if the accused would still marry her. To this question, the accused answered 'Yes' in Malviya language, the court added. Considering all these circumstances, the court deemed it fit to conclude that there is no concrete proof to suggest the breaking of a promise to marry.

Before holding that the consent given by the prosecutrix was not marred by fear or misconception [Section 90 of IPC] , reliance was placed on the apex court decisions in Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Dhruvaran Murlidharan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 1991. Before setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant of charges under Section 376(2)(n), the court also briefly discussed Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66 wherein the apex court held that it would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376.

In the abovementioned precedents, it has been held that when the promise to marry was not made with the sole intention of seducing the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, a promise to marry alone and its breach wouldn't constitute the offence of rape. In these cases, the Supreme Court also attempted to distinguish between a 'mere breach of promise to marry' and 'not fulfilling a false promise to marry'. A finding on that issue would depend upon whether the accused party actually wanted to marry the consenting party or whether the malafide motives of the accused party played a prominent role and the promise to marry was just a ruse to satisfy his lust.

The appeal in the instant case arose from the judgment pronounced by the Ujjain Additional Sessions Judge, sentencing the accused to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 10,000/- fine. The accused and the prosecutrix, two working professionals, became acquainted with each other through a matrimonial website. In 2019, the accused came to Ujjain to meet the prosecutrix and they stayed in hotel together during the duration of his visit. During the stay, the accused allegedly established sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Later, according to the prosecution version, the accused gradually began to ignore the complainant. According to the prosecutrix, she lodged a complaint with the police after she became aware of the sexual relationship that the accused had with another woman.

Advocate Virendra Sharma appeared for the appellant/accused. Advocate Sachin Jaiswal represented the respondents.

Case Title: Hariom Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1380 of 2023

Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 16

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment