Consent Not Necessarily Based On Promise To Marry Where Physical Relationship Continues For A Substantial Period: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a man who was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that if a consensual physical relationship continues for over a substantial/long/extended period, it cannot be said that the consent was purely based on the promise to marry.
The Court observed thus in an Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Trial Court by which he was convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced for a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.
A Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh explained, “In cases of breach of promise to marry, if said promise was made in good faith but subsequently, due to certain unforeseen circumstances or the circumstances beyond control, the said promise could not be fulfilled, it cannot be termed as false promise to marry and be a reason to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376. Also, it is to be noted that if there is consensual physical relationship continues for over a substantial/long/extended period, it cannot be said that the consent was purely based on the promise to marry.”
The Bench noted that if there is a promise to marry and the said promise is given in a bad faith and with no intention to adhere to the said promise, and the women on the pretext of this promise gives her consent to engage in a sexual act, then said consent will be vitiated by virtue of Section 90 of IPC and will not be a valid consent attracting the rigors of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC.
Advocate Pradeep Kr. Arya appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was registered by the father of the victim in 2019, on the ground that his daughter aged about 20 years went missing. He suspected that she went with the Appellant-accused who was aged about 18 and a half years. Subsequently, they were found at Dharuhera, Haryana and the accused was arrested. Resultantly, charges were framed under Section 366 and 376 of IPC against the accused. The prosecution examined total four witnesses to prove their case and thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The Trial Court after analysing the evidence, convicted the accused for the said charges and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Challenging his conviction, he was before the High Court. He had undergone 1 year 3 months and 20 days, remission of 3 months, leaving an unexpired portion of the sentence of 8 years 5 months 10 days.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the distinction between the two concepts (i) false promise to marriage and (ii) breach of promise of marry.”
The Court further took note of the fact that the accused and victim had known each other since June 18, 2018, loved each other, and wanted to marry and have established physical relations since March, 2019 till November, 2019.
“During this entire period, the prosecutrix knew that the appellant and prosecutrix belong to different castes and the marriage between the two was difficult. There is no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the appellant did not intend to marry the prosecutrix or refused to marry the prosecutrix”, it added.
The Court observed that both were both adults, consenting individuals and established physical relationship being in love with each other and out of their own free will.
“The marriage for whatever reason could not happen between the appellant and the prosecutrix but it cannot be said that physical relations were established on account of a false promise to marry. In order to convict a person on false pretext of marriage, there must be a clinching and clear evidence that physical relations were established only on the basis of promise to marry which was never intended to be kept. The same has not been proved”, it also enunciated.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the conviction, and directed that the accused and his family shall not interfere in the victim’s life or get in touch with her via any mode.
Cause Title- Shivam Pandey v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1117)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Pradeep Kr. Arya, Rishabh Malhotra, Aditya Kr. Arya, and Garima.
Respondent: APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan
