Can a promise of marriage, if later broken, automatically constitute rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC?

No. The judgment clarifies that a broken promise of marriage alone does not constitute rape. The prosecution must prove that the promise was made with no intention of fulfilling it at the time it was made, and that the victim’s consent was obtained solely due to this deceit.

Is the absence of physical injury or spermatozoa fatal to a prosecution under Section 376(2)(n) IPC?

While not conclusive, the absence of physical injury and biological evidence, combined with other contradictions in the victim’s testimony, can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case, as the Court emphasized that consent must be proven to be vitiated by deceit, not merely assumed.

How does prior consensual conduct between the parties affect a charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC?

Prior consensual sexual conduct, especially when prolonged and documented through travel and financial exchanges, creates reasonable doubt about the claim of non-consent. The Court held that such conduct must be fully considered and cannot be ignored in favor of selective portions of testimony.

False promise of marriage rape case Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that in cases involving sexual offences predicated on a false promise of marriage, the prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving deceit beyond reasonable doubt. The dismissal of the victim’s acquittal appeal underscores the judiciary’s caution against reversing trial court acquittals absent perversity or illegality, particularly where consent and credibility are central.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, a 27-year-old woman, alleged that the accused, Abhishek Patnaik, induced her into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage, culminating in his abandonment after a series of travels across India. She filed two written complaints (Ex.P-1 dated 12.01.2018 and Ex.P-2 dated 18.01.2018) alleging rape under Section 376(2)(n) and cohabitation by deceit under Section 493 IPC. The prosecution claimed that the accused, after assuring marriage, took her to Mumbai and Goa, applied sindoor, placed a mangalsutra on her, and engaged in sexual relations, only to leave her at Raigarh railway station on 11.01.2018.

Key Facts

The victim and accused had been in a consensual romantic relationship since 2013
On 03.01.2018 at approximately 11:30 PM, the accused allegedly entered the victim’s terrace, promised marriage, and had sexual intercourse
The victim did not inform any family member present in the house about the incident
The victim traveled with the accused to Bilaspur, Mumbai, Goa, Puri, and Shirdi on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2018
The Goa trip was pre-planned; hotel bookings and flight tickets were made in advance
The accused had already been engaged to another woman since 13.07.2017, a fact known to the victim
The accused transferred money to the victim’s and her sister’s bank accounts between 2015 and 2018
The victim admitted in cross-examination that she had previously engaged in sexual relations with the accused in Shirdi and other locations
The victim’s first complaint (Ex.P-1) dated 12.01.2018 made no mention of the 03.01.2018 incident
Medical examination (MLC Ex.P-9) by PW-2 Dr. S.T. found no external or internal injuries
FSL report (unexhibited) found no human spermatozoa on vaginal slides (Ex.P-7)
The accused produced 26 documentary exhibits (Ex.D-4 to D-37) including railway tickets, flight receipts, hotel confirmations, and bank statements

Procedural History

03.01.2018: Alleged incident on the victim’s terrace
12.01.2018: First written complaint (Ex.P-1) filed with Superintendent of Police
18.01.2018: Second written complaint (Ex.P-2) filed at Police Station Tamnar
20.01.2018: FIR (Ex.P-3) registered against accused
25.01.2018: Victim sent for medical examination; MLC report (Ex.P-9) prepared
05.02.2018: Vaginal slides (Ex.P-7) and accused’s underwear (Ex.P-11) seized
15.03.2018: FSL report submitted (unexhibited, no spermatozoa detected)
10.04.2018: Charge-sheet filed before Sessions Court
13.05.2022: Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, acquitted accused of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 493 IPC
15.06.2022: Appellant filed Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 180 of 2022) before Chhattisgarh High Court

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant/Victim

The prosecution contended that the accused obtained consent through a fraudulent promise of marriage, rendering the sexual acts non-consensual under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. It argued that the victim’s testimony was credible and that the trial court erred in ignoring the pattern of deceit, abandonment, and the cultural significance of sindoor and mangalsutra as symbols of marital intent.

For the Respondent/Accused

The accused denied all allegations, asserting that the relationship was consensual and longstanding. He claimed the victim was fully aware of his prior engagement and that all travel and financial transactions were part of a mutual romantic relationship. He submitted documentary evidence to corroborate his version.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought reversal of the acquittal, conviction of the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 493 IPC, and appropriate punishment including imprisonment and fine.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution successfully proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused obtained the victim’s consent for sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, and whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or legally unsustainable.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Petitioner

Counsel argued that the victim’s testimony was consistent in its core allegations and that the accused’s conduct - applying sindoor, wearing mangalsutra, and abandoning her - demonstrated a deliberate deception. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and State of U.P. v. Krishna to assert that a promise of marriage, if false, vitiates consent. He contended that the trial court erred in focusing on minor inconsistencies while ignoring the overall narrative of betrayal.

For the Respondent/State

The State supported the acquittal, agreeing that the victim’s testimony was riddled with contradictions. It emphasized that the victim admitted to a five-year consensual relationship, prior travels, knowledge of the accused’s engagement, and failure to report the 03.01.2018 incident immediately. The State highlighted the absence of physical injury, the FSL report, and the corroborative documentary evidence as decisive factors undermining the prosecution’s case.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began by recalling the settled principle from Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440: an appellate court must exercise restraint in reversing an acquittal, as the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the trial court’s favorable finding. It further cited Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) to emphasize that where two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail.

"If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed."

The Court meticulously analyzed the victim’s testimony, noting that she admitted in cross-examination that:

She did not mention the 03.01.2018 incident in her first complaint
Her family was present at home during the alleged assault
She had engaged in prior sexual relations with the accused in Shirdi and elsewhere
She knew the accused was engaged to another woman
The Goa trip was pre-planned and funded jointly
She had received financial transfers from the accused

The Court found these admissions fatal to the prosecution’s claim of deceit. The absence of physical injury, the lack of spermatozoa in the FSL report, and the absence of any immediate outcry further weakened the case. The accused’s documentary evidence - flight tickets, hotel bookings, bank statements - provided a credible alternative narrative of a consensual relationship.

The Court held that the trial court’s conclusion - that the victim was a consenting party and that the prosecution failed to prove a false promise of marriage beyond reasonable doubt - was not only plausible but legally sound. The appellate court found no perversity, no illegality, and no error of law in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.

The Verdict

The acquittal appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment dated 13.05.2022 acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 493 IPC. No conviction, sentence, or monetary relief was ordered. The accused remains acquitted of all charges.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now demonstrate that a promise of marriage was not only made but demonstrably false at the time of making, and that the victim’s consent was directly induced by that deceit
Mere cohabitation, travel, or symbolic acts like sindoor application are insufficient without proof of fraudulent intent
The burden remains squarely on the prosecution to disprove the existence of a prior consensual relationship

Credibility of Victim Testimony Is Paramount

Inconsistencies between complaint, Section 161/164 statements, and trial testimony must be addressed comprehensively
Delay in reporting, failure to inform family, and prior consensual conduct are critical factors in assessing credibility
Documentary evidence of mutual financial and travel arrangements can significantly undermine allegations of coercion

Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court’s Findings

Reversal of acquittal requires proof of perversity or illegality - not mere disagreement with the trial court’s view
Appellate courts must explicitly address and refute each reason given by the trial court for acquittal
The presumption of innocence is not a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against wrongful conviction

Section 376(2)(n) IPC | False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Establish Lack of Consent: Chhattisgarh HC