Breach of promise to marry in a prolonged consensual relationship does not constitute rape under Section 376.

The prosecution alleged that on December 28, 2007, the appellant raped the victim, then a Class X student, after gagging her mouth

Following the incident, the appellant allegedly promised to marry her, leading to a continued physical relationship on 2-3 occasions, resulting in the victim’s pregnancy

When the appellant eventually refused to marry her, a village panchayati was convened on May 27, 2008, which proved unsuccessful

A complaint was subsequently filed before the Magistrate and registered as an FIR on August 4, 2008

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Katihar) convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC on September 7, 2011, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction on grounds of an unexplained 8-month delay in filing the FIR, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the lack of proof regarding the victim's minority

The Court applied Section 375 of the IPC defining rape and Section 376 providing punishment

It relied on Section 90 IPC regarding consent given under a "misconception of fact"

The court cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) to distinguish between a "false promise of marriage" (made with mala fide intent at inception to satisfy lust) and a "breach of promise" (a promise made in good faith but not fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances)

It further referenced Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) regarding the emerging trend of criminalizing prolonged consensual relationships

The Court observed that the FIR was lodged nearly eight months after the initial incident, only after marriage negotiations via a panchayati had failed, suggesting the criminal machinery was used as a tool for settlement

On the issue of age, the prosecution failed to produce documentary evidence; however, the Medical Officer (PW-10) assessed the victim’s age as 18–19 years, leading the Court to treat her as an adult whose consent was relevant

The Court found the relationship was prolonged and consensual, evidenced by the victim’s "active and reasoned deliberation" in maintaining the relationship and her subsequent pregnancy without raising an alarm

Applying the Pramod Suryabhan Pawar ratio, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant had no intention to marry from the very inception; rather, the refusal appeared to be a subsequent development

Consequently, the consent was not vitiated by a misconception of fact, and the ingredients of rape under Section 375 were not satisfied

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction dated September 7, 2011, and the order of sentence dated September 8, 2011. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and discharged from his bail bonds.

The Court also directed the payment of a fee to the Amicus Curiae for his services