Beyond the Breach: Delhi HC Clarifies Consent in Sexual Offences Based on Marriage Promises

In a significant judgment delivered on February 13, 2025, the High Court of Delhi has overturned the conviction of a young man sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for rape. The case serves as a vital reminder of the legal distinctions between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise" of marriage, emphasizing that not every failed romantic commitment constitutes a criminal act.

The Background of the Dispute

The appellant, Shivam Pandey, was convicted by the Dwarka District Courts in 2023 under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a complaint by the father of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, who was older than the appellant, had entered into a long-term relationship with him. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had established physical relations under the false pretext of marriage. The matter escalated when the couple went missing in November 2019, leading to the appellant's arrest in Dharuhera, Haryana.

Arguments from the Trenches

The appellant’s counsel contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and rooted in mutual love and affection. He argued that the trial court failed to consider the maturity of the prosecutrix, who was older than the accused, and overlooked the fact that the couple had been in a relationship since 2018. The defense highlighted that the prosecutrix had even previously attempted to harm herself when her family objected to the relationship, indicating her deep emotional investment and agency.

Conversely, the state argued that the trial court’s judgment rested on the clear testimony of the prosecutrix, who maintained that consent was obtained through deceit. The state insisted that the absence of marriage meant the promise was inherently false, thus vitiating consent under Section 90 of the IPC .

Legal Analysis: The Threshold for "Consent"

Justice Jasmeet Singh’s bench subjected the definition of rape to rigorous scrutiny, centering on whether the appellant possessed a mala fide intention to deceive from the very beginning. Relying on established precedents such as Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and the recent Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra , the Court clarified that:

1. Distinction of Purpose: If a man enters a relationship with an early intent to marry and fails to do so due to unforeseen circumstances, it is a "breach of promise," not a crime.
   
   
2. The "False Promise" Requirement: To sustain a conviction under Section 376, the prosecution must prove that the accused promised marriage with the sole intent of satisfying lust, with no intention of fulfilling it.
   
   
3. Evidence of Agency: The Court noted that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult who accompanied the appellant on multiple occasions, suggesting that her decision to engage in physical relations was not solely contingent upon a marital promise.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling included several pointed observations regarding the nature of consent:

• "There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives."
• "The 'failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date... does not always amount to misconception of fact."
• "If a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made."
• "It cannot be said that the consent was purely based on the promise to marry" in cases where the relationship continued for an extended period.

The Decision and Its Impact

Finding no evidence that the appellant lacked the intent to marry at the inception of the relationship, Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside the conviction and order on sentence. The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

This ruling provides a sobering precedent for lower courts, reinforcing that the criminal law cannot be used as a remedy for the emotional heartbreak that accompanies the dissolution of a relationship. By clearly separating "breach of promise" from "false promise" of marriage, the High Court has reaffirmed that criminal liability requires a much higher threshold of proof than mere failure to fulfill a romantic commitment.