The legal interpretation of rape on the pretext of marriage in India has evolved through judicial precedents, balancing the sanctity of marriage with the principles of consent under criminal law.
NEW DELHI: The legal understanding of rape on the pretext of marriage has been shaped by judicial precedents across India. Marriage, in Indian society, is regarded as a sacred institution—transcending physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions.
Ancient Hindu law views marriage as a means to fulfill the three fundamental aspects of life: Dharma (duty), Artha (material possessions), and Kama (physical desires). Given the sanctity of marriage, criminal jurisprudence in India invokes Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, in cases where consent for sexual intercourse is obtained through a false promise of marriage.
Contrasting Legal Perspectives: Women’s Rights vs. Men’s Rights Activists
There exists a growing debate around these charges, particularly from “men’s rights activists,” who argue that such allegations should be categorized as “false rape cases.” They contend that the legal framework, as it currently stands, is paradoxical and counterproductive.
A significant number of acquittals and case dismissals have contributed to diluting the gravity of Section 375 IPC (rape). This has led to a critical deliberation on the concept of “consent” and the misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC.
Under the law, if a woman consents to sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage, such consent is deemed vitiated by a misconception of fact, rendering the act as rape under Section 375 IPC. However, key questions arise—
“what is the degree and nature of this misconception? Is there a well-defined legal test to determine whether consent was obtained through deception?“
Judicial scrutiny has been pivotal in answering these questions. Anthropologists and legal experts acknowledge that conflicts and misunderstandings are inherent in relationships, whether marital or otherwise. A significant judicial precedent was set by the Sikkim High Court, which extended the benefit of the doubt to an accused on the grounds that the relationship had simply “gone sour.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Ceremonies Required for a Valid Hindu Marriage
Difference Between ‘False Promise’ and ‘Breach of Promise’
The law distinguishes between a false promise and a breach of promise based on the accused’s intention at the time of engaging in a sexual relationship. Courts have acknowledged the difficulty in determining consent and intent in such cases.
Judicial Interpretation
- In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Supreme Court held that a false promise is one that is made with the knowledge that it will not be fulfilled, whereas a breach of promise occurs when a commitment is made in good faith but is later not honored due to unforeseen circumstances.
- If an accused can prove that he intended to marry the woman at the time of the relationship but later could not due to valid reasons, it does not amount to a false promise.
- In Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2005), the Supreme Court noted that external pressures, such as family opposition, can prevent a genuine intention to marry from materializing, thereby classifying the case as a breach of promise, not a false promise.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
False Promise as Deception
- In Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that if the accused never intended to marry the woman from the outset and used the promise deceitfully to establish a sexual relationship, it amounts to cheating and deception.
- Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act presumes that if consent was given based on a false promise of marriage, it is not valid consent. In such cases, sexual intercourse is deemed rape under Clause Second of Section 375 IPC, as seen in Yedla Srinivas Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2006).
- In Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (2013), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to carefully assess whether the accused had a genuine intention to marry or acted with malafide motives.
- Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naushad (2013), the court held that obtaining consent through a false promise of marriage amounts to rape.
Cases Where Consensual Sex Does Not Constitute Rape
- In Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2022), the Supreme Court clarified that consensual sex based on a genuine promise of marriage does not amount to rape.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
Proving Intention to Marry
Cases involving a false promise of marriage focus on two key aspects:
- How consent was obtained – whether it was given under deception or based on a misconception.
- Whether the accused ever intended to marry the woman.
Judicial Precedents on Intention
- In Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Supreme Court observed that a mature and intelligent woman understands the moral and legal consequences of her actions.
- In XXXX Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), the court examined the woman’s conduct in the relationship to determine the accused’s intent.
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
- XXXX Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)
2. Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
Section 69 of the BNS
- Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) codifies the offence rather than creating a new one.
- Critics argue that such legal provisions reinforce restrictive ideas about women, marriage, and consent, limiting women’s autonomy and revictimizing them.
Challenges in Law Enforcement and Investigation
Given the increasing number of acquittals and quashed cases, law enforcement agencies must develop clear investigative guidelines to differentiate between:
- Cases that merit a charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC.
- Cases where a closure report under Section 173 CrPC is more appropriate.
Certain identifiable parameters for investigation may include:
- The duration and nature of the relationship.
- Whether the accused was actively pursuing alternative matrimonial alliances.
- Whether the complainant insisted on marriage from the outset or later in the relationship.
- The timeline of events—whether the FIR was filed immediately after refusal to marry or significantly later.
- Any documentary evidence (messages, emails, or witness statements) indicating that the promise was made in bad faith.
One striking example is a case where an accused, who had cleared one of the toughest exams in the country, was prevented from joining his service due to an FIR under Section 376 IPC. The complainant had stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement that the accused had promised to marry her after clearing his examination. The premature filing of the FIR raises concerns about whether the case met the legal threshold for deception.
Towards a More Nuanced Jurisprudence
The growing number of acquittals and quashings in such cases underscores the need for a more nuanced legal framework. It is imperative to strike a balance—ensuring that genuine cases of rape on the pretext of marriage are prosecuted while preventing the misuse of Section 376 IPC in cases stemming from regular wear and tear of relationships.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has provided a fine distinction between cases where the accused had an intention to deceive at the outset and cases where the relationship simply did not culminate in marriage.
Moving forward, it is essential that investigating officers be equipped with clear guidelines and legal parameters to ensure that FIRs under Section 376 IPC are filed after a thorough and judicious assessment of facts, rather than in a mechanical manner.
By refining investigative standards and legal principles, the judicial system can maintain the integrity of rape laws while safeguarding individuals from misuse of legal provisions.
This balanced approach is crucial to upholding both women’s rights and principles of justice in cases involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage.
READ MORE REPORTS ON MARRIAGE LAWS
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE