The Jharkhand High Court has held that a long-term consensual physical relationship between two adults cannot automatically be treated as rape merely because the relationship later ends and one partner refuses to marry the other.
The Court observed that where two adults remain in a consensual relationship for several years, a subsequent refusal to marry does not, by itself, establish that consent for the physical relationship was obtained through a false promise of marriage.
Background Of The Case
The case involved a couple who had been in a relationship for approximately seven years. During this period, they were involved in a consensual physical relationship.
After the relationship ended and the marriage did not take place, a criminal case alleging rape was registered against the man. He approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking relief.
Distinction Between False Promise And Breach Of Promise
The High Court emphasised the important legal distinction between a false promise to marry made from the very beginning and a promise that could not eventually be fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances.
For a sexual relationship to attract criminal liability on the ground of a false promise of marriage, it must be established that the promise was dishonest from the inception and was made solely to obtain consent.
A mere breach of a promise or a subsequent decision not to marry cannot automatically transform a consensual relationship into an offence of rape.
Long-Term Consensual Relationship
The Court noted that the parties had voluntarily continued their relationship for nearly seven years.
Such a prolonged relationship between consenting adults is a relevant factor while examining whether the woman’s consent was obtained through deception.
The Court observed that the circumstances did not support the allegation that the accused had entered into the relationship with a fraudulent intention from the beginning solely to establish physical relations.
Consent Must Be Examined In Context
The High Court stressed that every case involving allegations of sexual relations based on a promise of marriage must be assessed on its individual facts.
Courts must consider factors such as:
- The duration and nature of the relationship;
- Whether the relationship was voluntary and consensual;
- The intention of the accused at the time the promise was made;
- Whether there was a genuine intention to marry initially;
- Subsequent circumstances leading to the breakdown of the relationship; and
- Whether consent was actually obtained through deception.
Court’s Decision
Considering the long duration and consensual nature of the relationship, the Jharkhand High Court held that the subsequent refusal to marry could not, by itself, convert the relationship into an allegation of rape.
The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a consensual relationship between adults ultimately fails to result in marriage.
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling is significant because it:
- Distinguishes between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of promise.
- Clarifies that not every failed relationship can give rise to a rape prosecution.
- Emphasises that fraudulent intention must exist from the inception of the relationship.
- Recognises the importance of examining consent in the overall factual context.
- Reinforces the need to prevent criminal law from being used to criminalise every failed consensual relationship.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that a subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically make a long-term consensual physical relationship an offence of rape. The crucial question is whether the promise of marriage was false and dishonest from the very beginning and whether it directly induced consent for the sexual relationship.
