Consensual sexual relationship between adults on promise of marriage does not constitute rape if subsequently solemnized.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim for eight months on the pretext of marriage, resulting in a pregnancy of five months, but subsequently refused to marry her on 12.01.2012

During the trial, seven witnesses were examined. Notably, the victim (P.W.-5) admitted in cross-examination that there was a consensual love affair, they had since married, she was happy in the relationship, and they now have two children together

Other witnesses (P.W.-1 to P.W.-4) confirmed that a marriage eventually took place

The Court applied Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding punishment for rape

The core legal principle applied is that for consent to be vitiated by a "misconception of fact" (under Section 90 IPC), there must be evidence that the promise of marriage was a "false pretext" or "mala fide" from the inception

The Court distinguished between a "breach of promise" (where the accused intended to marry but could not) and a "false promise" (where the accused never intended to marry)

The Court observed that both the Appellant and the victim were majors at the time of the incident and were aware of the consequences of their relationship

The Court found that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the criminal case was likely lodged as a "pressure tactic" due to the delay in performing the marriage

Crucially, the Court noted that the victim’s own deposition (P.W.-5) negated the theory of a "false pretext," as she admitted she was happy in her marriage with the Appellant and had fathered children with him

The Court reasoned that a bald statement of a promise of marriage is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC when the subsequent conduct of the parties (marriage and family) demonstrates a lack of fraudulent intent by the accused

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge – I, Rajmahal

The Appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bond