When can sex on promise to marry amount to offence of rape?
“’No means no, and when someone says no, you stop.” – Deepak Sehgal, Pink (2016).
This Article has been Written by Parthib Mukherjee, a law student from St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata
ABSTRACT
Sex, consent, and marriage are terms that resonate deeply in our society, often interpreted in complex ways. While sex is often viewed as a taboo subject, marriage is typically seen as a sacred commitment. In contemporary legal discussions surrounding sexual offenses, particularly rape, consent stands out as a crucial and vital concept. However, understanding consent can be quite complicated and context-dependent, especially when marriage promises are involved. Courts in various legal systems, including India, have been perplexed with the question of whether sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage can be categorized as rape. This article dives into the legal framework, judicial outcomes, and significant factors related to this twisted issue.
The Essence of Marriage in India
Marriage in India is more than just a union; it’s a sacred journey intricately woven into the fabric of life. Rooted in centuries of tradition, it is perceived as a spiritual bond meant to last a lifetime. For Hindus, it is a divine sacrament sealed by vows, while other religions see it as a holy treaty . Many women across the Indian subcontinent still hold the belief that marriage provides security and a prosperous future. Unlike in Western cultures, marriage in India is often viewed not just as a choice but as a societal expectation. When a man promises to marry a woman, he assumes responsibility for her, fostering a sense of trust that often leads women to consent to intimacy based on that promise of marriage.
When does someone give consent to a sexual relationship based on the promise of marriage?
Consent is indeed a vital concept in today’s legal landscape concerning sexual offenses such as rape. Yet, the idea of consent can be diverse and situational, particularly in regards to commitments like marriage. In many legal contexts, including our country, the courts have debated whether sexual acts based on a false promise of marriage should be considered rape.
When can sex on promise to marry amount to offence of rape?
Uday vs. the State of Karnataka (2003) was one of the first cases to examine the question of consent in sexual encounters based on a marriage commitment. In this instance, the accused was a young guy who, following an investigation, admitted to being 25 years old, despite his earlier claims to be approximately 20. He became close to the victim, who was a 19-Year-old college student. She claimed that she consented to sexual relations with him about 15–16 times after he promised to marry her. Eventually, she became pregnant and sought marriage, but he refused due to personal reasons. When the case reached the sessions court, it was decided that the accused had gotten her agreement by making a fake marriage promise, which is against the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and constituted rape.The accused was not happy with the ruling and filed an appeal with the High Court, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling but lowered the jail sentence to two years and assessed a Rs 5,000 fine..
Following that, the accused moved his case to the Supreme Court, which considered whether permission obtained by a fake marriage promise was considered rape under Section 375 of the IPC or if it was considered “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the IPC.
The victim, a college student, claimed that the accused, engaged in sexual relations with her solely on the basis of promise of marriage to her. The court noted her maturity and awareness of societal barriers (like caste differences) to their marriage, as well as her deep affection for the accused. The court found no evidence that the accused intended to mislead her or had no intention of marrying her. It concluded that her consent stemmed from love, not merely the promise of marriage. Since there was no fraudulent intent or misconception, the court deemed the relationship consensual and acquitted the accused of rape charges under Section 376 IPC.
In another case, Ajeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the victim’s father filed a complaint alleging that his daughter was sexually exploited by the accused under the pretence of a false marriage promise while he was running IIT classes in Delhi. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the late filing raised questions about its credibility. He expressed concern that the delay was intentional to exert pressure on him, claiming it was influenced by the victim’s father. He feared being detained by the investigative agency, which he believed was acting on the complainant’s behalf.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court where the matter was heard. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal pointed out that the claim suggesting a physical relationship was sustained by a false promise of marriage from the appellant lacks foundation, especially since their relationship culminated in marriage. The court noted that there isn’t enough evidence to support the allegation of a physical relationship based on a false promise to marry against the appellant.
Another remarkable case was Panda v. State of West Bengal (1983), where the concept of consent under a “misconception of fact,” as given in Section 90 of the IPC, was clarified. The defendant faced charges of rape under Section 376 of the IPC, with allegations that they secured the complainant’s consent for sexual relations through a false promise of marriage. The Calcutta High Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, explaining that a false promise of marriage pertains to an uncertain future event rather than a fact, and therefore does not meet the criteria for a misstatement of fact under Section 90 IPC. Moreover, the Court observed that there was no proof that the accused had no plans to wed the plaintiff.
In the case of Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State Of A.P., the accused formed intimacy with a girl , on assurance of marriage. When she found out she was pregnant, he backed out of the promise, on excuse that his parents opposed the marriage. This issue was brought before the Panchayat , where the accused admitted his wrongdoing and vowed to marry her, but then he fled the village. The Supreme Court noted that the girl had sexual relations with the accused based on his promise of marriage. The court determined that the accused’s actions constituted the crime of rape, as she would not have consented to intercourse without that promise. Ultimately, the court sentenced the accused to seven years in prison along with a fine.
VIEWPOINT OF THE SUPREME COURT
The question of whether an unfulfilled marriage vow results from natural conditions or from a conscious attempt to get consent for sexual contact has been up for debate for a long time
In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Supreme Court of India clarified the distinction determination of consent -To determine if the “consent” was affected by a “misconception of fact” stemming from a promise to marry, two key points are considered. It must be established that the promise of marriage was indeed a false promise, made in bad faith, without any intention of being kept at the time it was offered. Additionally, the false promise should be closely related to the woman’s choice to participate in the sexual act.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee ruled that for sexual consent to be invalidated under misconception of fact (per Section 375), the promise of marriage must be proven false at the time it was made and intended to deceive. In this case, the court found no evidence that Pawar’s promise was made in bad faith. The complainant continued the relationship even after caste objections were raised, indicating that her consent wasn’t solely based on his marriage promise. The demeaning WhatsApp messages were not considered to be valid , as required by the SC/ST Act.
As a result, the court determined that the allegations in the FIR did not meet the necessary criteria for any offenses under the IPC or SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and accepted the appeal, affirming that the allegations lacked a solid legal foundation for the charges. This ruling emphasized the importance of carefully examining false or vague accusations, especially in sensitive cases, before pursuing criminal prosecution.
In the case of Sonu Subhash Kumar Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2021), the Supreme Court emphasized its previous ruling from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019). According to Section 375, a woman’s consent should include an active and thoughtful consideration of the proposed act. Moreover, Section 90 clarifies that consent obtained through “fear of injury” or “misconception of fact” isn’t valid consent. When it comes to cases involving false promises of marriage, these are looked at under ‘misconception’ to evaluate whether the consent was truly valid.
As per the present scenario, the law can be misused as it gives absolute power to a woman to accuse any person whom she has been intimate with for promise of marriage even if there was consensual sex.
In light of the matter, the recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs The State Of Maharashtra determined that the long-term consensual relationship, lasting around nine years, indicated that the complaints lacked credibility. They found no solid evidence of deception or misleading intentions from the appellant that could suggest a false promise of marriage. Their interactions revealed a mutual relationship instead of one based on exploitation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the FIR against the appellant, emphasizing that continuing the proceedings would misuse the court’s process. The judgment also mentioned that the complainant could still seek other legal remedies outside of this specific FIR.
While there would be many individuals who might take advantage of specific laws for unjust purposes , it is ultimately the duty of the Court and Judicial System of our Country to maintain fair flow of justice in such a way that no innocent person shall be punished.
