The Delhi High Court has recently addressed the intricate issue of consent in the context of long-term consensual relationships, particularly when allegations of rape arise based on a purported false promise of marriage. In a significant judgment, the court underscored that the mere continuation of a consensual physical relationship over an extended period does not automatically imply that the woman's consent was solely predicated on a promise to marry.
The case in question involved an appellant who had been convicted under Sections 366 (kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, resulting in a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The origins of the case trace back to a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the father of a 20-year-old woman, alleging that his daughter was missing and had absconded with the appellant, who was approximately 18 and a half years old at the time. Subsequently, both individuals were located in Haryana, leading to the appellant's arrest.
The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, rooted in mutual love and affection, and devoid of any criminal intent. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the conviction was justified, emphasizing the clarity of the prosecutrix's testimony and asserting that the trial court had aptly evaluated the evidence presented.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the appeal, elucidated that a conviction for rape predicated on a false promise of marriage necessitates unequivocal and compelling evidence demonstrating that the physical relationship was established exclusively on the basis of a marriage promise that was never intended to be honored. The court articulated that if a promise to marry is made in good faith but remains unfulfilled due to unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances, such a breach does not constitute a false promise warranting prosecution under Section 376. Furthermore, the court observed that when a consensual physical relationship endures over a substantial period, it cannot be presumed that consent was solely based on a promise to marry.
This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's observations in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), where concerns were raised about the emerging trend of invoking criminal law against men on allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage after a prolonged consensual relationship deteriorates. The apex court emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between genuine cases of deceit and instances where relationships, once consensual, sour over time.
The Delhi High Court's ruling underscores the imperative for courts to meticulously assess the dynamics of each relationship, the context of consent, and the intentions of the parties involved. It reinforces the principle that not every breach of a promise to marry, especially in the backdrop of a long-term consensual relationship, amounts to rape. This nuanced approach ensures that the legal system does not become an instrument for unjustly penalizing individuals in cases where the complexities of human relationships and consent are at play.
In essence, the court's decision highlights the importance of discerning the fine line between consensual relationships that evolve over time and instances where consent is vitiated due to deceitful promises. Such discernment is crucial to uphold the integrity of the legal system while ensuring justice for all parties involved.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.