Prolonged consensual relationship of a major under pretext of marriage does not constitute rape.

The Appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. for allegedly committing rape on the victim (a 26-year-old nursing student) under the pretext of marriage between 2000 and 2003

The victim alleged that the Appellant forcibly established physical relations on 08.09.2000, subsequently put vermilion on her forehead, and lived with her in a rented house and his parental home for several months

An FIR was lodged on 17.12.2003—approximately three years after the initial incident

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant primarily based on the victim's testimony and the act of putting vermilion as a promise to marry

The Appellant challenged the conviction, asserting the relationship was consensual

Whether the physical relationship between the Appellant and the victim was consensual, thereby falling within the exception to Section 375 of the IPC

Whether a promise of marriage followed by a prolonged relationship between two majors amounts to "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the Evidence Act to constitute rape

Whether the delay of three years in lodging the FIR, coupled with negative medical/FSL reports, is fatal to the prosecution's case

The court applied Section 376 of the IPC regarding the punishment for rape and Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which vitiates consent if given under a "misconception of fact"

It relied on the precedent in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, establishing that prolonged physical association between adults implies voluntary consent and cannot be termed rape solely due to a subsequent fallout

It further applied Prakash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh regarding the "hazardous" nature of convicting an accused on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix when there is a significant, unexplained delay in filing an FIR and a lack of corroborating medical evidence

The High Court observed that the victim was a 26-year-old educated adult (nursing student) fully aware of the consequences of her actions

The Court found the Trial Court’s reliance on the "vermilion" ceremony as evidence of rape to be perverse, noting that the parties lived together for months, shared meals, and the victim never raised an outcry or reported the matter even when residing with the Appellant's parents

The Court highlighted that the FSL report (Ex. P/14) was negative and the medical examiner (PW-11) noted the victim was "habitual to sexual intercourse," providing no evidence of recent forced struggle

The Court reasoned that a three-year delay in filing the FIR, without a valid explanation, suggests the relationship was consensual and only turned into a criminal complaint after the marriage failed to materialize

It concluded that a breach of promise to marry does not automatically translate to a "false promise" from the inception

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2005

The Appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, and his bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for six months per Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.