For Offence Of Rape On False Promise To Marry, Physical Relationship Must Be Shown To Be Only Based On Marriage Promise : Supreme Court

A recent Supreme Court judgment has given clarity as to when a consensual sexual relationship can amount to the offence of rape on the false promise of marriage.

The Court observed that when a woman has maintained a physical relationship with a man for a long period, it cannot be said with certainty that such relationship was solely because of a promise made by the man to marry her. A woman may indulge in physical relationship with a man for reasons other than the promise of marriage. To attract the offence of rape on the false pretext of marriage, it has to be established that the sexual relationship was based only on the promise of marriage and the consent was vitiated due to misconception of fact when the man refused to marry the woman.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed :

“In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties.

In a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the man to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact."

Promise must have been made from the beginning

The Court observed that if a false promise of marriage is made to a woman by a man, thus deceiving the woman and leading her to engage in sexual relations, it may amount to misconception of fact, in which case the consent given by the woman may be vitiated. Reference was made to Niam Ahmed v.State.

"It must also be clear that for a promise to be a false promise to amount to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90 of IPC, it must have been made from the very beginning with an intention to deceive the woman to persuade her to have a physical relationship. Therefore, if it is established that such consent was given under a misconception of fact, the said consent is vitiated and not a valid consent," the Court added.

Mere breaking of promise won't amount to offence

The Court further clarified :

"It may be also noted that there may be occasions where a promise to marry was made initially but for various reasons, a person may not be able to keep the promise to marry. If such promise is not made from the very beginning with the ulterior motive to deceive her, it cannot be said to be a false promise to attract the penal provisions of Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376 IPC."

In the present case, even assuming that the appellant had made the promise since 2008 when they met for the first time, the fact that they remained unmarried for a long period till 2017 without there being any protest or objection by the complainant, does not indicate the intention at the initial stage itself to make the promise falsely to marry the complainant, the Court said.

"Making an allegation of non-fulfilment of promise to marry without undue delay by the promissee would, on the other hand, be an indicator of a false promise being made from the initial stage. In the present case, what is not in dispute is that the physical relationship between the appellant and the complainant continued for a long period of about a decade and as such it is difficult to infer that the appellant had made a false promise since the initial stage and continued to make false promises to marry her on the basis of which she also continued to have physical relationship with him," the Court said.

From facts, the Court deduced that the relationship was more of an extra-marital affair which went on from 2008-2017.

The bench made these observations while quashing an FIR for the offence of rape which was lodged against the man by the woman after the breakdown of their relationship.

The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were false, initiated only after he discontinued financial assistance to the complainant.

The Court rejected the complainant's argument that the appellant had forceful intercourse with her under the garb of a false marriage promise.

The judgment authored by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh noted that the decade-long physical relationship, maintained without consistent protest or objection, suggested consensual involvement rather than coercion. The Court said that it was implausible that the complainant could have continued the relationship for nine years under a mere promise of marriage, without any evidence of deception at the outset.

In the judgment, the Court also expressed concerns about the increasing trend of lodging criminal cases against men after the breakdown of a consensual relationship.

“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”