Rape : Consent merely due to a promise of marriage; absence of intention to marry at the outset must be established

Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Charges: Consensual Relationship Does Not Constitute Misconception of Fact. Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of Deceptive Promise of Marriage in Long-term Relationship

In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings against Pradeep, who was accused of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The judgment, delivered by Mr. G. Girish, J., underscores the critical distinction between consensual relationships and those vitiated by fraudulent promises, setting a precedent for similar cases across the country.

The case involved allegations from the de facto complainant, a widow, who claimed that Pradeep had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the guise of marriage promises. This relationship spanned over eight years, during which the complainant maintained ties with Pradeep even after learning of his marriage to another woman.

The Court meticulously analyzed the circumstances surrounding the case, emphasizing that for an act to be classified as rape under the Indian Penal Code, there must be clear evidence of consent obtained through deception. It highlighted that mere breach of promise does not equate to rape unless the promise was made without any intention of fulfillment solely to obtain consent for sexual intercourse.

The judgment referenced several Supreme Court cases, including Uday v. State of Karnataka and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, which have consistently held that consent given in anticipation of marriage does not automatically imply misconception of fact unless accompanied by deceitful intent. The Court concluded that the long-term cohabitation and mutual conduct between Pradeep and the complainant indicated a consensual relationship, negating the charge of rape.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural aspect under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating that allegations under Sections 493 and 496 of the IPC require a direct complaint by the aggrieved party, not merely a police report, thus rendering the current proceedings unsustainable.

With this ruling, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the importance of discerning genuine consent from coercion or deception in legal interpretations of sexual relationships, providing clarity in cases involving promises of marriage.

Bottom Line:

Consent in sexual relationships cannot always be presumed as given under misconception of fact merely due to a promise of marriage; absence of intention to marry at the outset must be established to constitute rape.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376, 493, 496; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482, 198, 173(2).

This judgment serves as a significant reference point for legal professionals and individuals alike, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent to deceive in cases of alleged rape under false promises of marriage.

Pradeep v. Station House Officer, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810260