Breach Of Marriage Promise Not Rape If Victim Consents With Full Knowledge: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has overturned a conviction for rape, ruling that physical intimacy based on a promise of marriage does not constitute an offence under Section 376 when the victim, being a major, enters the relationship with full knowledge of the man's existing marital status. The Court underscored that a clear distinction exists between a fraudulent promise made to deceive and a mere breach of a promise that the maker intended to keep but could not fulfill.

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava delivered the judgment while hearing a criminal appeal challenging the 2008 conviction of a man sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The appellant, a government employee and tutor, was accused of establishing a relationship with his student under the pretext of marriage, only to later refuse to formalize the union.

Key Takeaways

Distinction Between Deceit and Breach

Physical relations established under a promise of marriage only amount to rape if the promise was false ab initio, intended solely to obtain consent through a 'misconception of fact'.

Knowledge Vitiates Deception

If the prosecutrix is aware that the accused is already married, the claim of being deceived by a promise of marriage loses its legal credibility as a ground for vitiating consent.

Solitary Testimony Standards

While a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be of 'sterling quality' and free from material contradictions or inconsistencies.

Medical Evidence Importance

In cases of alleged forcible intercourse, the absence of internal or external injuries and the lack of spermatozoa in medical reports can significantly weaken the prosecution's narrative.

Evaluating Consent and Misconception of Fact

The Court examined the scope of Section 375 of the I.P.C. (prior to its 2009 amendment) and the applicability of Section 90 regarding consent given under a misconception of fact. The bench noted that the victim was aged between 16-17 years at the time of the incident, and in the prevailing legal context, was old enough to understand the consequences of her actions.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The very allurement for marriage is also not believable because she knows that the accused is already married person having children. The victim has herself admitted that before occurrence, there was no allurement offered / made by the appellant. It also appears from the medical examination report of the victim that there was no external or internal injury on the body of the victim and she was habitual to sexual intercourse."

The Court has the following directions:

"The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008 / 05.02.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 97/2000 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged."

Ratio

To hold an accused guilty for rape under a promise to marry, the prosecution must prove that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. Consent is not vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' if the prosecutrix enters a sexual relationship with full awareness of the legal or social impediments (such as the accused's existing marriage) that prevent the fulfillment of the promise.

Background

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was a 'Jan Sewak' and a science tutor, induced the informant's daughter into a physical relationship by promising marriage. It was claimed that a meeting (Panchayati) was held where the appellant confessed and agreed to marry the girl, but later fled and refused to honor the commitment. The appellant was subsequently charged under Section 420 and Section 376 of the I.P.C..

The defense argued that the victim was a consenting party and pointed out that the medical evidence, conducted by Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another ( "(2019) 9 SCC 608": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2769), did not support the theory of forcible rape. Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another ( "(2019) 9 SCC 608": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2769), the appellant's counsel argued that a breach of promise cannot be equated to a false promise made to deceive. The High Court found merit in these arguments, noting that the victim's testimony was inconsistent and that she was aware the appellant was a married man with children, thereby negating the theory of 'misconception of fact'.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 343 of 2008
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:27293
Case Title: Laxman Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.; Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 2744