A failed promise to marry does not vitiate consent absent fraudulent intent from inception.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court.

The prosecution alleged that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant on the promise of marriage and later refused to marry her.

The complainant, aged 24 at the time of medical examination, was the principal prosecution witness; the medical evidence reported no signs of recent intercourse, and forensic examination detected no seminal stains on the samples examined.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 420, with fines.

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC.

Whether the sexual relationship, said to have occurred on a promise of marriage, established rape through consent vitiated by misconception of fact, or cheating.

The Court considered Sections 375, 376, 90 and 420 IPC.

For rape based on a promise to marry, a promise that is not fulfilled is distinct from a false promise made without any intention of fulfilment from the outset; consent is vitiated by misconception of fact only where the false promise induced the complainant’s consent and the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that it did so.

The Court also relied on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, including the principle that a prolonged consensual relationship cannot, without credible evidence of deception or absence of free consent, be retrospectively treated as rape merely because it did not result in marriage.

The prosecution was required to prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant continued for more than four years and that they remained emotionally close; the evidence did not establish that the appellant had made the promise without intending to fulfil it from the outset or that the complainant’s consent resulted from such a misconception.

The Court therefore treated the physical intimacy as arising during the course of the relationship, rather than as rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.

In light of the evidentiary record, including the medical and forensic evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC.

It set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC, cancelled his bail bond and directed the trial court to refund any fine paid.