Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Ashok - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A.120 of 2017
Decided On : 25-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr Rishabh Dahiya and Ms. Ananya Mohant, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP, Ms Sowjanya, Amicus Curiae

The court held that a long-term consensual relationship, even under a promise of marriage, does not constitute rape, and the merely subsequent breakup does not create criminal liability.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 420, and 506 - Conviction for rape and cheating - Court set aside conviction based on unreliability of prosecutrix's testimony and the finding that consent was present in a prolonged relationship. All sentences previously handed down were reversed - The consent cannot be deemed vitiated due to a subsequent breakup or failure to marry. (Paras 2, 14, 19)

(B) Legal principle on consent - Consent may be express, implied, coerced, or misguided, but consent is an act of reason with deliberation. The distinction between rape and consensual sex must be considered regarding promises of marriage. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for sexual assault and cheating against the complainant based on assertions that he misled her with promises of marriage while inducing sexual relations and taking money. The relationship spanned several months. (Paras 1, 2, 14)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was inconsistent and filled with improvements. It ruled that her prolonged consent to the relationship negated claims of coercion or deceit surrounding consent and the relationship. (Paras 12, 18)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the sexual relations were consensual given the promise of marriage, and whether the prosecutrix's subsequent complaint could support a conviction. (Paras 15, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the nature of the relationship indicated valid consent given the circumstances and time spent together; therefore, the promise of marriage alone could not subsequently convert the consensual relationship into a criminal act. (Paras 15, 17)

Result: Impugned judgment of conviction set aside; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. background of the prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding reliability of witness testimony. (Para 4 , 5)
3. defence arguments and witness testimonies. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
4. conditions for establishing consent vs. coercion. (Para 14 , 15)
5. judicial reasoning and application of legal principles. (Para 17 , 18)
6. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant stands convicted in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 316/2011 registered under Sections 376 /506 IPC at P.S Vivek Vihar. Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 08.11.2016, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376 /420 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 07.12.2016, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo 6 months RI, for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to 5 years RI along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo 6 months RI, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution in a nutshell noted by the Trial Court are as under:

“1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 28.10.2011 a complaint was as made by Ms. 'S' (name withheld), daughter of XXX that she is resident of XXX. She got divorce from her earlier husband and resides alone. She has a shop of garments in XXX since January. One boy in the name of Ashok used to come to her shop for showing clothes and thereafter he came several times at her shop for showing clothes and whenever he came for showing clothes he used to talk with her out of context and during conversation he started increasing closeness with her and started playing drama of love. He told her that he is unmarried and has three swimming pools in Delhi and is resident of Rohtak, Haryana.

In the year 2007, complainant sold her one plot for a sum of Rs.23,50,000/- and amount received in lieu of that plot was deposited in her account at Central Bank of India XXX and she got FDR of that amount. The aforesaid Ashok started taking money from complainant after getting premature withdrawal of the FDR. He won her faith due to his company with her and gave a proposal of marriage to her. He trapped her on giving the assurance of marriage and started making physical relation with her. In May 2011, he told her that he is purchasing a plot of 200 sq. yards in Rohtak for which he has an urgent need of money. On this he took Rs.3,50,000/- from her on 25^th May 2011 and thereafter told her that before performing marriage, they would construct the plot and thereupon would reside in the said house. On 25.06.2011 he again took Rs.3 lacs from her. Thereafter, he asked her that he has to purchase something for marriage and by inducing her with his love, he took ATM card of HDFC and Central Bank of India from her and said Ashok withdrew Rs.10,000/- on 16.06.2011, again Rs.10,000/- on 16.06.2011, Rs.10,000/- on 19.06.2011, Rs.10,000/- on 29.06.2011 and Rs.10,000/- on 18.07.2011 from ATM Branch at Rohtak and from other branches and in this manner the said Ashok withdrew Rs.5,50,000/- through the ATM cards of the complainant (statement of account regarding withdrawal is attached).

It was further stated that Ashok played a creepy game with her and he took money from her and also threatened the complainant on telephone to do whatever she can do and further threatened that in case she will make any complaint against him, he would kill her as he has relations with police officials and leaders. He further threatened the complainant that he only played a drama with her and to see his mind that he made physical relation with her and also took money from her and how innocent she is that she surrendered herself and whenever he demanded money from her, she used to give money with love and affection. T