Consensual Relationship and Social Barriers to Marriage Do Not Constitute Rape Under Pretext of Marriage Promise.

The Appellant/Victim filed an acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 01.12.2023, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the accused established physical relations with the victim on 01.03.2022 and subsequent occasions under a false pretext of marriage

Medical examination indicated the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse and showed no injuries

During cross-examination, the victim admitted to voluntarily visiting the accused's house at 3:00 AM, going on a picnic with him months after the alleged incident, and facing family/social opposition due to inter-caste differences

The FIR was lodged after a delay of 10 months

1. Whether the physical relationship between the parties was consensual or obtained through a "misconception of fact" under a false promise of marriage

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence warrants interference by the Appellate Court

The Court primarily applied Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC regarding repeated sexual assault on the same woman and the principle of "consent" under Section 90 of the IPC.

It relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), which distinguishes between a "false promise to marry" (made with deceptive intent from the start) and a "breach of promise" (where marriage fails to fructify due to subsequent circumstances like caste opposition)

Furthermore, it applied the standards for reversing an acquittal set out in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail

The Court observed that the prosecutrix's testimony lacked the "forcible" element required for rape, noting she voluntarily visited the accused’s house in the dead of night and continued the relationship (including a picnic) long after the alleged initial assault

The Court found that the relationship was likely a consensual love affair where marriage became impossible due to inter-caste social pressure, rather than a deceptive trap set by the accused from the inception

The 10-month unexplained delay in filing the FIR and the lack of medical corroboration further weakened the prosecution's claims

Consequently, the Court determined that the "misconception of fact" doctrine did not apply because there was no evidence the promise was false at the time it was made

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s view was a legally plausible one

The Court concluded that a breach of promise to marry resulting from societal/caste obstacles does not equate to the criminal offense of rape