The Delhi High Court has ruled that sex based on a genuine promise of marriage that did not materialise owing to external causes is not rape.
[Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs State] The Delhi High Court ruled that; sexual relations established on the basis of a genuine promise of marriage that; later failed to fructify owing to external circumstances are not rape.
The court made the remarks while overturning an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) (Central), Tis Hazari Court.
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT
The ASJ has filed charges against a guy for violating the Indian Penal Code’s Section 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same lady) (IPC).
The petitioner (the defendant in the lower court) appealed to the High Court the order establishing the charges.
ARGUMENTS FROM STATE
The prosecutrix and the State told the single-judge that; the petitioner made a fraudulent promise of marriage, based on which he maintained a sexual contact with her.
The petitioner and his family were allegedly raising the concerns because the prosecutrix was not financially well-off, and the petitioner wanted to marry a lady whose father would have the financial means to invest in the marriage.
ARGUMENT FROM PETITIONER
The petitioner claimed that the couple was in a serious relationship, but that physical contact between them had never occurred.
Despite their incompatibility, the petitioner said to be head over heels in love with the prosecutrix and planned to marry her.
The petitioner’s attorney argued that; the current case is simply an example of a bad-faith relationship that ended badly, and that; the lower court failed to apply its judicial mind to the circumstances of the case and mechanically formulated charges
WHAT COURT OBSERVED
To reach the finding that; sexual contacts between the petitioner and prosecutrix were coerced, Justice Prasad stated that; it is crucial to assess whether; a promise to marry made with the goal of not maintaining the commitment and so was false at the outset.
If the promise of marriage; real and the marriage did not fructify due to external circumstances, he held, the promise could not be regarded to be false, and consent under Section 90 of the IPC would not be void.
After reviewing the first information report (FIR) and the status report, the judge concluded that; not only were they (prosecutrix and petitioner) in a long-term relationship, but that; a roka had taken place with all family members present, indicating that; the petitioner intended to marry the prosecutrix.
THE APPELATE COURT’S DECISION
The lower court failed to provide any grounds to support how there was adequate material to proceed against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, according to Justice Prasad.
There is a distinction, according to Justice Subramonium Prasad, between a false promise of marriage and; a breach of a pledge to marry.
The High Court concluded that; the lower court’s order is riddled with legal flaws and should be overturned.
Read more blogs@advocatetanwar.com