If promise to marry was not made with sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual act, such an act would not amount to rape

Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 30th March 2020

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018

Facts of the case:

Respondent No.4, who was a widow filed an FIR against the appellant stating that she and the appellant were in love, had started living together and had maintained physical relationship. But the appellant failed to marry her as promised. Most importantly she found out that he was married to another woman. The appellant filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet. However, this petition was dismissed and the appellant was charged with offences under Sections 376 (2)(b), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ ST Act. Thus, the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court.

Judgment:

The court made a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. The court carefully examined whether the appellant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating and deception. If the accused had not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

After carefully observing the facts, the court held that it is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her. It is not a case of passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted. There was a tacit consent, and the consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant. Thus, the complaint registered under Section 376(2)(b) cannot be sustained.

The Apex Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the FIR and the charge-sheet.