Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds acquittal, ruling that a promise to marry an already married woman does not amount to rape, emphasizing legal consent and impossibility of marriage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 3, 2025, delivered an important judgment in a criminal appeal concerning the alleged rape of a woman on the pretext of marriage. The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the acquittal of Laxman Kahar, holding that a promise to marry an already married woman does not constitute a “misconception of fact” under the law.
ALSO READ: Married Woman’s Affair Not Rape on Promise of Marriage, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court
Background of the Case
The case traces back to an FIR lodged on May 1, 2023, where the prosecutrix, referred to as Victim X, accused Laxman Kahar of maintaining a physical relationship with her for four years on the pretext of marriage. According to her complaint, on March 16, 2023, Kahar took her to his house and allegedly committed rape. When she pressed him to marry her, he cited family opposition.
The trial court, presided over by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, had acquitted Laxman Kahar of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(च) of the IPC, prompting the prosecutrix to appeal to the High Court.
Arguments Presented
Appellant’s Argument:
The prosecutrix’s counsel, Shri Avinash Gupta, argued that the victim’s and her brothers’ testimonies were reliable and sufficient to establish rape. He contended that consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage, citing Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana and State of U.P. Vs. Naushad, where the Supreme Court held that consent obtained under a misconception of fact is invalid.
Respondent’s Argument:
Shri Arvind Singh, Government Advocate, and Shri Mukul Singh, counsel for the respondent, supported the trial court’s acquittal.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court, led by Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, scrutinized the evidence:
- Prosecutrix’s Testimony:
- She was 35 years old, married for 19 years, and had three sons.
- Divorce proceedings and a maintenance case were pending; her marriage was not legally dissolved.
- She admitted that the respondent could not marry her while her existing marriage was undissolved.
- Witness Testimony:
- PW-2 (brother) and PW-4 (hostile witness) confirmed her intention to marry the respondent despite her marital status.
- Medical Evidence:
- Dr. Rashmi Rai found no external or internal injuries and confirmed the hymen was old and torn, indicating no conclusive medical evidence of rape.
- Legal Precedents:
- The High Court distinguished the present case from the State of U.P. Vs. Naushad, noting that unlike that case, the respondent here was legally incapable of marrying the prosecutrix due to her existing marriage.
- Referring to Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court highlighted the difference between a mere breach of promise and false representation leading to rape.
Judgment
The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, reasoning:
“There was no possibility that when the prosecutrix did not get divorced from her husband, the respondent could marry her. Therefore, there is no case of misconception or misrepresentation by the respondent to the prosecutrix.”
Following the Supreme Court guideline in Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh, the Court stated that when two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should prevail.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, reaffirming the acquittal.
Case Title:
VICTIM X Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1021 of 2025
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Extramarital Affair
