K Chakra Pani
Introduction
Rape is one of the most heinous offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The evolving nature of rape as an offence has consistently expanded the definition of rape through numerous judicial decisions, one of the aspects being ‘rape on the false promise of marriage’. This type of offence was identified and recognised in the case of Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh[1]. Subsequently, the offence was recognised as distinct from rape and is punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.
Rape on the false promise of marriage is a distinct yet relatively modern offence. It involves the accused establishing physical relations with the victim under the pretext of promising to marry the victim while knowing that such a promise is false. In this case, the victim gives consent to an implied ‘coloured’ version of rape. Such consent is not valid and clear in the eyes of the law. The consent for physical relations must be clear, unambiguous, and without any form of coercion or undue influence. But taking consent, which seems prima facie valid but is under the colour of ‘false promise of marriage’ is not valid and is punishable under the law.
What is ‘Rape on False Promise of Marriage’?
The concept of rape on a false promise of marriage was first identified by the Court in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh[2]. The Supreme Court described it as:
“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 of the 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 Section 375 of the IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”[3]
The Court brought about the inter-reading of Section 90 along with Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC, bringing out that the consent obtained on deceit or with ill-intention is not a valid consent, and subsequent sexual relations will amount to rape. This case established that rape is not limited to being a non-consensual act; rather it is an act for which consent was coloured or taken on different grounds/promises. The knowledge that such promises are not real is a significant factor in deciding whether it amounts to rape or not.
In cases involving such an offence, the people involved are either unmarried or married but cheating on their respective spouses, if any. In the case of married people, the accused making such false promises of marriage will outright amount to rape right from the inception of the physical relations with the victim. There may be cases where there was a genuine promise to marry but such could not be fulfilled[4]. Still, the usual occurrence of cases is that of initiating sexual relations with the victim on a false promise of marriage, which, after being discovered to be false, such conduct of sexual relations would amount to rape of the victim. There is a rule that no legal protection is available to married people who are legally married to their spouses and are involved in such an offence.[5] The present case falls under the latter category.
About the Case
The present case of XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.[6] is a landmark decision in the matter of rape on the false promise of marriage. The case pertains to the validity of the promise of marriage made by the accused to the victim during the subsistence of the victim’s marriage. Whether there was a scope for imposing criminal liability on the accused for the alleged breach of trust and for obtaining consent unlawfully or through colourable reasons. Usually, such cases involve unmarried people, signifying the importance of the ‘promise to marry’ in the situation. In this case, the accused and the victim were married to different people. The complainant was going through divorce proceedings with her former husband, and the decree came out in January 2021. However, the accused and complainant entered into a physical relation in 2017, and the victim informed the accused that she was divorced in 2018, leading to a contradictory situation where the victim obtained the consent of the accused through deceit. The accused was the tenant of the victim, and when the victim was going through divorce proceedings, the accused provided moral and financial support to the victim, which gradually led to an emotional connection and resulted in both having physical relations. The victim eventually got a divorce from her ex-husband and continued the relationship with the married accused. The two also solemnized their marriage in a temple. When the accused denied court marriage, the victim filed a case of rape on false promise to marry, leading to the prosecution of the accused eventually before the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments
The Petitioner–Appellant contended that the entire case was an abuse of the process of law. The complainant–victim was a married lady with a 15-year-old daughter. The relations between them were consensual. The Appellant relied on the cases of Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi)[7] and Prashanth Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi)[8] to support his arguments that the victim was abusing and misusing the provisions and procedures of law against the appellant and that she had no substantive case to prove against him before the court. In the supported cases, the Court put forth that the offence of rape on false promise to marry would not be tenable and maintainable when the victim itself had done the wrong act of entering into physical relations with the accused ‘during the subsistence of her marriage’, leading to the victim-wife cheating on her husband. There would be no promise to marry when the previous marriage was subsisting during such relations. Such consensual relations when turned sour lead to the opportunity for the victim to make use (or misuse) the process of law by filing a false rape case on the accused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant contended that on the false promise to marry, the accused and the victim started having physical relations, solemnising their marriage in a temple in January 2019, one month after the divorce of the victim and her previous husband was confirmed. The appellant had made the complainant a nominee in an insurance policy, thereby contending a clear case of rape on false promise of marriage.
Interpreting the scope of protection under IPC to rape on false promise of marriage
It is an accepted unwritten rule that the complainant-victim (the female) has a right to charge the accused (the male) for rape when a promise of marriage is broken, having the intention that such promise was false. It is crucial that not just the promise was false, but on account of such false promise, the victim was induced to have sexual relations with the accused. The victim believed such false promises given by the accused, which led to physical relations. When the promise is not met, the standard rule by the victim is to file a case of rape for not fulfilling the promise. It can be seen in similar cases that, the onus is on the man to prove that he had a genuine promise to marry and had no intention of benefitting through sexual relations by making such false promises. This goes against the universal criminal law principle: ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The man needs to prove his innocence to be removed from charges of rape.
In the present case, the Court did consider the general rule that the victim’s statements are the core of the proceedings and such statements must be proven false beyond reasonable doubt to establish innocence. However, the Court placed a duty on her to exercise an equal amount of responsibility, maturity, and accountability while entering into such physical relations, while being married to her husband. Instead of placing the burden of proof on the accused to prove innocence, the Court turned around and placed liability on the complainant. The Bench held :
“It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take the 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 the subsistence of her earlier marriage. It was a case of betraying the husband.”[9]
The complainant was married while having sexual relations with the accused, who was also married. It was contended that such relations were approved by the complainant’s parents and her daughter, which the Court found bizarre and discarded vehemently. The marriage of the accused and complainant was solemnised in a temple when the divorce decree had not come out yet. After her divorce was granted, the two continued their relations with the knowledge of her parents and daughter. It is evident that there was clear consent by the complainant along with the parents and the daughter as they were living in the same house where such physical relations took place.
The Court noted an interesting fact. The complainant started having physical relations with the accused during the subsistence of her earlier marriage in 2017. But she stated to the accused that she was divorced in 2018, while the actual decree came out in January 2021, the same month when the accused and the complainant solemnized their temple marriage.
The case involved the complainant’s betrayal of her husband, deceiving the accused through false facts of her divorce, making wrong claims about the knowledge of such relations by her parents and daughter, and filing a false case of rape on the promise of marriage against the accused for merely refusing to solemnise court marriage. There cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for a sexual relationship under misconception.
The Court referred to and relied on the case of Naim Ahamed[10] which had a very similar factual matrix as that of the present case. The complainant being a mature married woman was intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of the act she was consenting to. It appeared that she betrayed her husband and daughter by having a relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed a liking. She was even staying with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage, where she continued to have physical relations. Till the time she was denied court marriage, she did not have any complaint against the accused of giving false promises. It was only on account of the refusal to solemnize court marriage that the present dispute cropped up and a complaint was filed.
Conclusion
In law, the provision of rape is a protective provision for women, and lately, such protection is used to attack innocent men. Rape on false promise of marriage is one such misused attack, as can be seen in the present case. False cases of rape destroy the purpose and intent of such judicial protective measures. Once a dispute arises between the parties, such protective measures are misused to harass the accused, thereby abusing the process of law. Rape on the false promise of marriage is a modern yet significant offence considering the dynamic changes taking place in society today, with the advent of live-in relationships. However, such an offence requires responsibility and accountability from both parties, in order to evaluate whether such a charge is genuine or not. Such cases of deceitfully using the law for immoral and personal benefits need to be prohibited to ensure the protection of not only the victims but also the accused.
[1] Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 509.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id. at para 12.
[4] Gaurav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Criminal Application [APL] No.45 of 2023 Supreme Court.
[5] S. Rajadurai v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 871.
[6] SC Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207.
[7] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89.
[8] (2013) 9 SCC 293.
[9] Supra Note 6 at para 8.
[10] Supra Note 7.
Click here to view the judgement in XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh