A prolonged consensual relationship does not constitute rape absent proof of a false promise from inception.

The prosecutrix alleged that she and the appellant, her former classmate, were in a relationship and that, between 2015 and 2017, he repeatedly had sexual relations with her on a promise of marriage.

She further alleged that she became pregnant and that the appellant administered medicine which caused a miscarriage.

The FIR was lodged in May 2019.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 294 and 506.

He appealed against the convictions and sentences.

The High Court allowed the appeal and assessed the evidence concerning the relationship, alleged promise of marriage, pregnancy, and miscarriage.

Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant’s repeated sexual relations with the prosecutrix constituted rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, because her consent was based on a false promise of marriage.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant voluntarily caused the prosecutrix’s miscarriage, attracting Section 312 IPC.

Section 376(2)(n) IPC prescribes enhanced punishment for rape committed repeatedly against the same woman; the Court stated that the provision requires material showing rape on more than one occasion.

In assessing whether sexual relations induced by a promise of marriage amount to rape, the Court relied on Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764; Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197; and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2025 INSC 1351.

It applied the principles that a consensual relationship does not become rape merely because it later fails to result in marriage, and that the prosecution must establish deception or a false promise made in bad faith from the inception.

Section 312 IPC requires proof that the woman was pregnant, that a miscarriage occurred, and that the accused voluntarily caused it, absent a lawful medical reason.

On the rape charge, the Court found that the prosecutrix described a relationship lasting about three years and that the evidence did not substantiate that her continuing consent was caused by a false promise made in bad faith from the outset.

It also considered the delay of about two years between the end of the relationship and the FIR, which was lodged after the appellant returned from training in the Armed Forces.

On the miscarriage charge, although pregnancy was supported by medical evidence, the prosecution did not establish that the appellant procured or administered the medicine.

The medicine wrapper was seized more than two years after the alleged event, and the evidence contained inconsistencies about where the pregnancy was terminated.

The Court therefore held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant caused the miscarriage.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 312 IPC.

The appellant was entitled to a refund of any fine paid and, being on bail, was not required to surrender; his bail bonds were to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.