Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Introduction:
The case deals with the legal question of whether a prolonged consensual sexual relationship, continuing for 16 years, can amount to rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, ruling that there was no evidence of force, deceit, or mala fide intent at the beginning of the relationship.
Facts of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted her in 2006 and continued to engage in sexual relations with her for 16 years on the false pretext of marriage. She filed an FIR in 2022, accusing the appellant of rape under Section 376 IPC(Now Section 76 of BNS,2023) The complainant claimed that the accused had made repeated promises to marry her, but later married another woman. The accused argued that their relationship was consensual and that the complainant willingly engaged in the relationship for over a decade. The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether a prolonged consensual relationship of 16 years can be classified as rape based on a false promise of marriage?
- Whether the appellant had any mala fide intent or deceitful intention at the inception of the relationship?
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR (after 16 years) affects the credibility of the complainant's allegations?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The relationship was consensual and continued for 16 years without any allegations of coercion or deceit. The complainant willingly engaged in sexual relations and even lived with the accused as his wife at times. The complainant filed the FIR only after the accused married another woman, indicating an ulterior motive. There was no evidence to suggest that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the outset of the relationship.
5. Contentions of the Respondent:
The accused misled the complainant by continuously assuring her of marriage while engaging in sexual relations. She was under the belief that he would eventually marry her, and therefore, she consented to sexual relations. The accused betrayed her trust and married another woman, proving that his promise of marriage was false from the start.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court noted that a mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is established that the accused never intended to fulfill the promise at the outset (Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi)). It found it hard to believe that a highly educated, independent woman would allow herself to be "sexually exploited" for 16 years without raising any protest. The complainant's conduct of portraying herself as the accused’s wife contradicted her claim of being a victim of rape. The delay of 16 years in filing the FIR and the continued intimate relationship weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court ruled that there was no element of force, coercion, or deception in the relationship.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the allegations were ex facie unbelievable and full of contradictions.
It ruled that the accused cannot be held liable for rape under Section 376 IPC, as the complainant had wilfully maintained a long-term relationship with him. The Court emphasized that allowing such a case to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that prolonged consensual relationships cannot be considered rape merely due to a later refusal to marry, unless it is proven that the accused had fraudulent intent from the beginning. The judgment serves as a precedent in distinguishing breach of promise to marry from deceitful inducement leading to rape.
