By Tanvi Mehta.

The Gujarat High Court held that every sexual relationship where a man fails to marry a woman despite promising to do so cannot be considered rape. This ruling came in a case where a man had been accused of rape for being in a sexual relationship with a woman after allegedly making a false promise of marriage.

The Court expressed its concern over the rapid increase in cases where consensual sexual relationships are later converted into rape allegations. The Court drew a parallel to the rise in false cases filed against husbands under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty towards wives. The Court emphasized that a man can only be held guilty of rape on the promise of marriage if it is proven that he had no intention of honoring the promise and that this promise was the sole reason the woman consented to the sexual relationship. It noted the difficulty in determining whether consent was given solely based on the promise of marriage or due to mutual desire, especially in long-term relationships.

In the case at hand, the Court found that the complainant had voluntarily entered into a physical relationship with the accused, which continued for about one and a half years. Importantly, the Court also considered DNA evidence which showed that the accused was not the biological father of the child the complainant claimed was conceived during their relationship. This evidence significantly undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Court reasoned that when a woman of legal age consents to a sexual relationship and allows it to continue for an extended period, it becomes challenging to classify it as rape. It stressed that for an act to be defined as rape, there must be evident resistance from the victim at the time of the assault.

Based on these considerations, the Gujarat High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused man. This judgment highlights the complex nature of rape cases involving promises of marriage and emphasizes the need for careful consideration of consent and intent in such cases.

[Citation: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING &SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 21237 of 2019.]

Click here to view the Judgement