Advocate Yash Jain
Introduction
Over the past few years, there has been an elevated rise in crimes against women. According to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) report, a substantial escalation in reported crimes against women, soaring from 3,71,503 cases in 2020, to 4,28,278 cases in 2021 and to 4,45,256 cases in 2022. These figures only numerate the reported cases. Many victims do not prefer to report the cases and some cases aren’t recorded due to authorities lacking to act because of their lackluster attitude which leads to a total miscarriage of justice.
We are witnessing a new wave of rape cases over the last few years, wherein the Defendant is accused of rape. These cases involve a scenario where a man, who has promised to marry a woman, has physical intimacy/sexual relation with her and later on turns out to deny any such promise. The woman aggrieved by this, sues this man for rape, often forgetting the consensual nature amongst both of them.
Does False Promise of Marriage Amount to Rape?
According to the newly enacted Act Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a penal provision has been added under Section 69 which says:
“Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means: Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity”
This provision has been added as the need of the hour, after seeing the degree of this offence committed in recent times. It simply explains whoever falsely induces a woman to marry to carry out sexual relations by making false promises shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for 10 years.
In Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 13 SCC 1, the Court held “The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions would be that if it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her, such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 IPC and, in such a case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Sections 375 IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC.”
Cases of rape do not need to occur in all situations, as they can vary depending on circumstances and conditions. For instance, a promise made to induce a person to be in a physical relation or sexual intercourse may arise out of pure love and affection.
In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 191, Supreme Court held that:
“23. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently. If the complainant had any mala fide intention and if he had clandestine motives, it is a clear case of rape. The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.
24. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was serving as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre and the complainant was working as an Assistant Nurse in the same health centre and that she is a widow. It was alleged by her that the appellant informed her that he is a married man and that he has differences with his wife. Admittedly, they belong to different communities. It is also alleged that the accused/appellant needed a month’s time to get their marriage registered. The complainant further states that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that she needed a companion as she was a widow. She has specifically stated that “as I was also a widow and I was also in need of a companion, I agreed to his proposal and since then we were having love affair and accordingly we started residing together. We used to reside sometimes at my home whereas sometimes at his home”. Thus, they were living together, sometimes at her house and sometimes at the residence of the appellant. They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each other’s company. It is also clear that they had been living as such for quite some time together. When she came to know that the appellant had married some other woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her. She had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things that had happened. It is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant. We are also of the view that since the complainant has failed to prima facie show the commission of rape, the complaint registered under Section 376(2)(b) cannot be sustained.”
Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case where a man was accused of raping a married woman on the pretext of false marriage. The Court noted that the woman was already married before she came into a relationship with the man and maintained physical relations consensually.
In the case of XXXX Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another, Cr. Appeal No. 3431 OF 2023 (SC), the Court held that:
“8. From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was got registered and the statement got recorded by the complainant, it is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018. However, the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021. It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband. It is the admitted case of the prosecutrix that even after the appellant shifted to Maharashtra for his job, he used to Page 8 of 11 come and stay with the family and they were living as husband and wife. It was also the stand taken by the appellant that he had advanced loan of ₹1,00,000/- to the prosecutrix through banking channel which was not returned back.”
Conclusion
While there is no such formula to categorize whether the actions of the accused constitute rape, each case must be assessed based on its unique circumstances. In doing so, the Court must be aware of the difference between making a false promise of marriage and failing to fulfill a promise of marriage. If the accused never genuinely intended to marry the victim or has made a false promise of marriage to overcome her resistance, this would attract Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, if the accused is simply unable to fulfill the promise of marriage due to changed circumstances in his life or other factors, it would constitute a mere breach of promise and not fall under the category of Rape under Section 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. There have been many instances where woman abuses the provision of rape maliciously just to suppress the accused as an emotional weapon before this society. There should be very careful consideration of the facts and adjudication done on the ground level and there should also be penal provisions for victims using this provision without any just cause because of its heinous nature.
References :
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023
- (2019) 13 SCC 1
- (2019) 18 SCC 191
- Appeal No. 3431 OF 2023 (SC)
- NCRB