Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case Involving False Promise to Marry, Emphasizing Consensual Nature

Introduction

In a recent decision that underscores the stringent evidentiary standards required in cases of alleged rape on the basis of a false promise to marry, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed an appeal by the State against the acquittal of two accused individuals. The division bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, refused to interfere with the trial court's order, citing the complainant's own expressed reluctance to marry the primary accused and the absence of proof of forcible intercourse. The case, The State v. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2025), originated from allegations under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This ruling highlights the judiciary's careful scrutiny of consent and intention in such sensitive matters, particularly when the relationship began on a matrimonial website during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The decision reinforces that not every instance of sexual intercourse following a promise of marriage constitutes rape without evidence of deception leading to non-consensual acts.

The appeal challenged the acquittal order dated December 14, 2023, passed by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Sessions Case No. 1371 of 2021. The prosecution's narrative centered on an alleged confinement and repeated sexual assaults, but the courts below found the evidence insufficient to establish non-consent or force. This outcome serves as a reminder to legal practitioners handling similar cases of the critical role played by the prosecutrix's testimony and corroborative materials in proving the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Background

The origins of this case trace back to March 2020, when the complainant, referred to as PW1 in the proceedings, connected with the first accused, Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe, through the matrimonial website Shaadi.com. The two reportedly remained in contact for approximately three months, exchanging communications amid the escalating COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent nationwide lockdown. According to the prosecution's version, on May 22, 2020—coinciding with the eve of the Ramzan festival—the first accused invited the complainant to his residence under the pretext of marriage discussions. It was alleged that once there, she was confined for four days, during which the accused allegedly raped her multiple times by exploiting her trust in his promise to marry. The second accused, Dastagir Saifan Sab Thambe, was implicated as a co-conspirator, though specific roles were tied to common intention under Section 34 IPC.

On May 28, 2020, the first accused reportedly dropped the complainant near her home but subsequently became unresponsive, ignoring her calls and rendering himself untraceable. Distraught, the complainant lodged a formal complaint with the Kengeri Police Station, leading to the registration of FIR No. 140/2020. The police investigation ensued, gathering statements, medical evidence, and other materials. The complainant underwent a medical examination, which noted a ruptured hymen but no external injuries or signs of resistance on her body or private parts.

The matter proceeded to trial before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge in Bengaluru. Key witnesses included the complainant (PW1), a doctor (PW3 for medical report), a head constable (PW4), and others such as a neighbor (PW2) whose testimony aimed to corroborate the location of events. However, discrepancies emerged: the complainant claimed the incidents occurred at a room in Santhe Beedhi, Kengeri, while investigation evidence pointed to the accused's actual residence in Shirke, about three kilometers away. The trial concluded with the acquittal of both accused on December 14, 2023, as the court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges, particularly the element of non-consent in the alleged rapes.

The State, represented by the State Public Prosecutor, filed an appeal under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking leave to challenge the acquittal and reversal of the trial court's order. The High Court heard arguments on admission and delivered its oral judgment on January 9, 2026, upholding the acquittal. This timeline—from the initial contact in March 2020 to the High Court's dismissal in early 2026—reflects the protracted nature of criminal appeals in sexual offense cases, often compounded by the emotional toll on victims and the scrutiny of lockdown-era interactions.

At its core, the legal questions revolved around whether the sexual acts constituted rape under Section 376 IPC, given the promise of marriage; the credibility of the complainant's claims of force and confinement; and the sufficiency of medical and circumstantial evidence to establish the offenses. The case also touched on broader issues of consent in relationships formed online and the impact of subsequent relational breakdowns on criminal liability.

Arguments Presented

The State's appeal, advanced by learned State Public Prosecutor-II Sri Vijayakumar Majage, centered on alleged errors by the trial court in evaluating the evidence. The prosecution contended that the trial judge improperly discounted the prosecution's case solely because the medical report (Ex.P3) showed no external injuries, ignoring the intact indication from the ruptured hymen that sexual intercourse had occurred. They argued this medical finding, combined with the complainant's detailed testimony of confinement and repeated assaults, sufficiently proved the offenses under Sections 376 and 354 IPC. The appellant emphasized that the absence of visible injuries does not negate rape, especially in cases involving psychological coercion or false promises, where physical resistance might not manifest. Furthermore, they asserted that the trial court failed to appreciate the corroborative value of the complainant's prompt complaint and the accused's post-incident evasion, which demonstrated deceit under Section 420 IPC. The State urged the High Court to grant leave and convict the accused, reversing the acquittal to uphold justice for the victim and deter similar exploitative behaviors during vulnerable times like lockdowns.

In opposition, the respondents' counsel, Sri Shaikh Saud, representing both accused, defended the trial court's meticulous analysis, particularly from paragraphs 36 to 53 of the judgment. They highlighted that the court had exhaustively reviewed oral and documentary evidence, including Ex.P1 (the complainant's earlier complaint) and Ex.P4 (investigation records). Crucially, they pointed to the complainant's own statements expressing unwillingness to marry the first accused due to a lack of confidence in him, which undermined claims of deception-induced consent. The defense argued that the alleged four-day confinement lacked corroboration, with witness testimonies (e.g., PW2, PW3, PW4) revealing inconsistencies in the location of events—Santhe Beedhi versus Shirke. They stressed the trial court's rejection of the threat narrative, noting the complainant's active social media engagement contradicted claims of fear-induced silence. On the rape charge, the respondents contended that even accepting the complainant's account of physical contact, it appeared consensual, not forcible, aligning with precedents distinguishing between seduction and rape. They maintained that no grounds existed for admission of the appeal, as the trial court correctly applied the burden of proof on the prosecution.

Both sides drew on factual points: the prosecution on the timeline of contact and the medical report's implications, while the defense focused on the complainant's post-incident actions, such as requesting police intervention only for advice rather than prosecution, and the lack of immediate disclosure to neighbors despite alleged threats.

Legal Analysis

The High Court's reasoning meticulously deferred to the trial court's detailed examination of evidence, emphasizing principles of consent and the high threshold for proving rape on a false promise. The bench noted that while promises to marry can vitiate consent if breached deceitfully, mere subsequent refusal without initial misconception does not elevate consensual sex to rape. This aligns with the Supreme Court's elucidation in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra ((2019) 18 SCC 191), where it was held that "consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by the victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape." The Karnataka High Court applied this precedent directly, observing that the complainant's evidence failed to demonstrate force or deception at the time of the acts; instead, her later reluctance and lack of faith in the accused suggested a voluntary relationship that soured.

The court distinguished between related concepts: outright assault under Section 354 IPC requires intent to outrage modesty through force, which was not substantiated here due to no injury marks and inconsistent location evidence. Similarly, cheating under Section 420 demands inducement by deceit for wrongful gain, but the bench found the promise too nebulous without proof of fraudulent intent ab initio. Intimidation under Sections 504 and 506 was dismissed as the alleged threats lacked credibility—the complainant's social media activity belied claims of life-threatening fear preventing disclosure.

Precedents played a pivotal role. Beyond Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar , the trial court (and by extension, the High Court) referenced Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor ((1975) 4 SCC 106), which underscores that delays in lodging complaints can erode the credibility of the prosecution's story. Here, while the complaint was relatively prompt, the court scrutinized the complainant's earlier statements (e.g., Ex.P1 dated June 9, 2020), where she sought only advisory intervention from police, not criminal action, further doubting her narrative of non-consent.

The analysis also addressed medical evidence's limitations: a ruptured hymen indicates intercourse but not force, especially without corroborating injuries or resistance marks. The bench clarified that in false promise cases, the focus is on whether consent was obtained through a hollow assurance known to be false from the outset—a "misconception" per Supreme Court guidelines—rather than post-facto regret. This ruling draws a clear line between exploitative relationships and criminal rape, cautioning against over-reliance on the prosecutrix's testimony without independent corroboration, as mandated under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act for presuming non-consent in certain rape scenarios.

Integrating insights from contemporaneous reports, such as those noting the trial court's paragraph-wise dissection of PW1's cross-examination, the High Court's deference promotes judicial consistency in appellate reviews of acquittals, where interference is warranted only if the trial findings are perverse (as per Section 378 CrPC principles).

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations that illuminate the court's rationale. Key excerpts include:

• On the complainant's credibility and threats: "PW1 stated that due to threats posed to her life by accused No.1, she did not disclose the incident to the neighbours. However, the trial Court did not accept this explanation, as in her cross examination she had categorically stated that she was active on social media and made comments thereon; therefore the trial Court held that the alleged threat was not believable."

• Regarding the earlier complaint: "A perusal of the same reveals that PW1 had requested the police authorities to call accused No.1 and advise him. In Ex.P1 also, PW1 specifically stated that she was not willing to marry accused No.1 as she was not having any confidence in him."

• On the nature of the sexual acts: "The trial Court observed that even if such statement is accepted, it does not disclose forcible sexual intercourse and appears to be consensual. It was also noted that PW1 did not specifically state that she was subjected to forcible rape."

• Citing precedent: "Even assuming that there was physical contact, it could only be treated as consensual and not as alleged by the prosecution and even taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein it has been held that 'consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape'."

• Final assessment: "Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal."

These observations underscore the judiciary's emphasis on holistic evidence evaluation over isolated medical findings.

Court's Decision

The High Court unequivocally dismissed the State's appeal, stating: "Having considered all the materials available on record... we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed." No leave was granted under Section 378 CrPC, effectively upholding the trial court's acquittal of both respondents on all charges.

This decision has significant practical implications. It reaffirms that in false promise to marry cases, the prosecution must prove not just a breached promise but active deception vitiating consent at the time of the act— a high bar that protects against misuse of Section 376 IPC for personal vendettas. For future cases, especially those arising from online matrimonial platforms, courts may more rigorously probe the timeline of relational dynamics and post-incident conduct, such as the complainant's reluctance here, which can dismantle the prosecution's foundation.

Broader effects include bolstering defenses in consensual-but-failed relationships, potentially reducing convictions in ambiguous scenarios while urging better police training to document intent early. For victims' advocates, it signals the need for stronger corroborative evidence, like digital trails from apps like Shaadi.com, to counter credibility challenges. In the context of rising cyber-mediated relationships, this ruling may influence how lockdowns' isolation is factored into consent assessments, ensuring justice balances victim protection with accused rights. Ultimately, it contributes to a nuanced jurisprudence on consent, reminding legal professionals that regret alone does not equate to crime.