Subsequent refusal to marry would not render the original promise false: Delhi High Court acquits man in rape case

“A subsequent refusal or failure to marry, by itself, would not render the original promise false. To establish that the promise was false from the inception, the prosecution must prove that the intention to deceive existed at the very outset”, the court noted.

The appellant-man was convicted by the trial court in a case registered under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.

Background

The woman-complainant had alleged that she was residing with her mother and giving dance training to children when the appellant rented a room in their house. She stated that after a month, he started talking to her, and later he proposed marriage to her.

The complainant had alleged that while she was returning from her dance academy, the appellant picked her up in his van, and took her to a guest house where he allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance.

The complainant stated that he repeated his promise to marry her and allegedly continued to have sexual intercourse with her multiple times on the same assurance of marriage.

It was alleged that when the complainant again asked him to marry her, he refused, following which she lodged the complaint against him.

The appellant had asserted that he never had physical relations with the complainant nor made any promise to marry her. He alleged that the mother of the complainant wanted him to marry her daughter, and when he refused, he was allegedly implicated falsely. According to him, it was the complainant who repeatedly proposed marriage.

The court noted that appellant and the complainant had known each other for several months before the alleged incident.

The court further observed that the complainant’s statement established that the parties maintained a close and voluntary association for several months during which sexual intercourse took place multiple times, until their relationship eventually broke down when the appellant allegedly declined marriage.

“Keeping in view the lapse of time between the alleged first act on 09.02.2012 and the eventual complaint in June 2012, the parties’ continued contact and repeated sexual relations during that period, and the absence of corroborative medical or forensic material, this Court finds that substantial doubt arises as to whether the physical relationship, if any, was nonconsensual or vitiated by misconception of fact”, the court said.

The court observed that a sexual relationship maintained over a period of time between two adults ordinarily raises a presumption of valid and conscious consent. It further added that if it is shown that, at the time of making a promise of marriage, the promisor never intended to honour it and made such promise solely to induce the woman into sexual relations, the consent obtained would stand vitiated by misconception of fact.

The court found that certain aspects of the complainant’s testimony did not fully align with her earlier statements and the surrounding circumstances.

The court, therefore, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the physical relationship was non-consensual or that her consent stood vitiated.

The court, thus, set aside the rape conviction.