Consensual relationship with full knowledge of facts negates rape on false promise of marriage.

The appellant (victim) filed an appeal against the judgment dated 13.05.2022, which acquitted Respondent No. 2 of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 493 of the IPC

The victim alleged that Respondent No. 2 induced her into a physical relationship on the false pretext of marriage, took her to various locations including Mumbai and Goa, and performed a sham marriage ceremony before abandoning her at a railway station

A subsequent complaint alleged a prior instance of forcible sexual assault on the victim's terrace

Investigation revealed no physical injuries in the MLC and no human spermatozoa in the FSL report

Evidence further showed a five-year love relationship, prior consensual trips to Shirdi, and the victim's knowledge of the respondent's engagement to another woman

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, finding the relationship to be consensual.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s findings regarding the consensual nature of the relationship were perverse or based on a legally plausible appreciation of evidence

2. Whether the physical relations established under the promise of marriage amounted to rape under Section 376(2)(n) or deceitful cohabitation under Section 493 of the IPC

The Court applied Sections 376(2)(n) and 493 of the Indian Penal Code regarding repeated rape and cohabitation caused by deceitful belief of marriage

It relied on the principles governing appeals against acquittal established in Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, which held that an appellate court should only disturb an acquittal if the trial court’s view is not a "possible one" and noted that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence

The Court further applied the guidelines from Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2024), stating that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be followed, and interference is only permitted in cases of patent illegality or perversity

The Court observed that the victim (PW-1) was a 27-year-old adult who had been in a long-standing romantic relationship with the accused for five years

The Court highlighted material contradictions between the victim’s initial written complaints and her court testimony, specifically regarding the alleged terrace incident which was omitted from the first report

It noted that the victim admitted to opening her door for the accused, traveling voluntarily to multiple cities, and receiving money transfers, which indicated a consensual relationship rather than one based on coercion or deceit

Furthermore, the accused produced documentary evidence (travel tickets, hotel receipts) and demonstrated that the victim was aware of his engagement to another woman prior to the trips

The Court reasoned that the victim’s failure to raise an alarm or offer resistance, coupled with her awareness of the respondent’s marital status, negated the claim of a "false promise of marriage"

It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, as the victim was a consenting party to the acts

Consequently, the Court found no patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the acquittal appeal at the admission stage