1. Appeal against acquittal in rape case based on false promise of marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 28008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sukhvinder Kaur, Anoop Chitkara, JJ
------------ – Appellant
Versus
------------ – Respondent
Important Points
To establish rape based on a false promise of marriage, the promise must be proved as fraudulent from its inception; long-term consensual relationships between mature adults and unexplained delays in filing an FIR indicate consent rather than misconception of fact.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 90 - Consent in rape cases - Promise of marriage - To establish if consent was vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' arising out of a promise of marriage, the promise must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given (Paras 11 and 12) - Longer duration of physical relations between partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage is indicative of a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage (Paras 15 and 16) - When the prosecution story contains material contradictions regarding dates and nature of the act (forcible vs. consensual), the veracity of the version becomes doubtful (Para 14).
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Long delay in filing the FIR, especially when the case rests on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, creates strong doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version and suggests the relationship was consensual (Paras 19 and 20).
(C) Appeal against Acquittal - The appellate court shall interfere with an order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
The appellant/prosecutrix alleged that the respondent No. 2 engaged in sexual intercourse with her based on a false promise of marriage since 2017. She claimed that after the accused secured a government job in the Indian Railways in 2020, he refused to marry her. An FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence and the consensual nature of the long-term relationship. The appellant challenged this acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix provided contradictory pleas regarding whether the relations were based on a promise of marriage or were forcible. Given that the prosecutrix was a mature working professional and the relationship spanned several years without immediate protest, it was concluded to be consensual. Furthermore, the long delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, reinforcing the conclusion of consent.
Issues: Whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage or if the relationship was consensual in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: For a conviction based on a false promise of marriage, the promise must be false from the inception. A long-term sexual relationship between mature adults, coupled with a significant delay in reporting the crime, typically indicates a consensual relationship rather than a fraudulent one.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Long delay in filing the FIR, especially when the case rests on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, creates strong doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version and suggests the relationship was consensual (Paras 19 and 20).
(C) Appeal against Acquittal - The appellate court shall interfere with an order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced (Para 23).
Facts of the case:
The appellant/prosecutrix alleged that the respondent No. 2 engaged in sexual intercourse with her based on a false promise of marriage since 2017. She claimed that after the accused secured a government job in the Indian Railways in 2020, he refused to marry her. An FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence and the consensual nature of the long-term relationship. The appellant challenged this acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix provided contradictory pleas regarding whether the relations were based on a promise of marriage or were forcible. Given that the prosecutrix was a mature working professional and the relationship spanned several years without immediate protest, it was concluded to be consensual. Furthermore, the long delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, reinforcing the conclusion of consent.
Issues: Whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage or if the relationship was consensual in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: For a conviction based on a false promise of marriage, the promise must be false from the inception. A long-term sexual relationship between mature adults, coupled with a significant delay in reporting the crime, typically indicates a consensual relationship rather than a fraudulent one.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Davinder Lubana
For the Respondents: Ankul Bali
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Davinder Lubana
For the Respondents: Ankul Bali
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued trial court ignored consistent prosecutrix testimony and contradictory pleas; respondent denied allegations. (Para 8 )
3. Prosecutrix's contradictory pleas, long delay in FIR, and consensual relationship of long duration indicated no false promise. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Consent vitiated by false promise of marriage requires proof of promise made in bad faith with no intention to fulfill. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal judgment upheld for lack of merit. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. What standard governs appellate interference with a trial court's acquittal judgment?
An appellate court should interfere with an acquittal order only when there is perversity of fact and law, as the presumption of innocence is reinforced. (Para 23 )
7. When does a promise of marriage vitiate consent under Section 375 IPC?
Consent is vitiated only if the promise was false from inception, given in bad faith with no intention to be fulfilled at the time it was made. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Does a long-term consensual relationship without insistence on marriage indicate false sexual consent?
Yes, longer duration of physical relations without protest or insistence on marriage indicates a consensual relationship, not one based on false promise. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
9. Is unexplained delay in filing an FIR fatal to a rape prosecution?
Yes, unexplained long delay in filing the FIR, especially when the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is unreliable, creates strong doubt on the prosecution version. (Para 19 , 20 )
10. Can contradictory pleas by the prosecutrix vitiate a rape case based on false promise of marriage?
Yes, material contradictions between the initial complaint and court testimony regarding forcible or consensual relations make the prosecution story doubtful. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 )
Sukhvinder Kaur , J .
1. Appellant/ prosecutrix has preferred the instant appeal against judgment dated 08.10.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (to primarily try offence of Rape and under POCSO Act), Chandigarh, vide which respondent No.2-accused Ashish Kumar has been acquitted.
2. Factual scenario, as unfurled by prosecution is that a complaint dated 22.04.2021 was moved by the prosecutrix alleging therein that the accused was in serious relationship with her since 2017. He had carnal copulation with her on false promise of marriage but now he had refused to marry her. She was working as Advisor in Jio Life at Bestech Square Mall, Mohali. Her father was a Tailor and close friend of Hari Singh. In the year
2014, daugher-in-law of Hari Singh, namely, Neeraj suffered serious burn injuries and she requested her father to send her to take care of Neeraj. Accused is brother of Neeraj and he used to frequently visit his sister's place, where she came in contact with the accused. Accused started taking interest in her and she used to talk to him out of respect and it was quite evident that he used to like her. After recovery of Neeraj, she came back to her parental house and thereafter, she remained in constant touch with the accused and in the year 2017, accused proposed her to be in serious relationship. Accused used to make physical advances towards her whenever they were alone. When she used to stop him then he promised her that once he was selected for a government job, he would definitely marry her and threatened her that if she would not develop physical relations with him, he would leave her. In May, 2018, accused took her to a room at Bus Stand Sector-17, Chandigarh and offered a drink and after taking it, she suffered headache and then accused started making physical advances towards her and assured her that he loved her and would marry her. On his assurance and being under intoxication she allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. She used to visit house of Neeraj several times and she knew about their relationship. Neeraj along with her Husband took the prosecutrix to the house of accused and introduced her to his parents. Parents of accused also agreed for their marriage. Thereafter, accused again took the prosecutrix to a room at Bus Stand, Sector-17, Chandigarh and again developed sexual relations with her on pretext of marriage. From the year 2018 till end 2019, accused made physical relations with her several times on various occasions at different places. In the year 2019, behaviour of accused towards her got changed and in the beginning of 2020, accused stopped meeting her and taking her calls. In August, 2020, accused got selected in the service of Indian Railways. After his selection, she congratulated him and asked about their future to which he replied that he was not interested in marrying her. She was completely shattered and pleaded him for marriage but accused subjected her to abusive and humiliating behaviour. When she told about the same to Neeraj and family members of accused, they replied that she did not match with their social status and entire family of accused abused her and humiliated her. Thereafter, she gave a complaint to police on 18.08.2020. On 24.09.2020, father of accused came to Police Station and gave in writing that his son had been selected in Indian Railways and his training had commenced and when his training would be over, he would solemnize her marriage with accused. Accused and his family members in connivance with each other by giving false promise of marriage, played fraud with her and cheated her. Accordingly, FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested. Medical Examination of prosecutrix as well as accused was got conducted. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities the challan against the accused was presented f
