Consensual Relationship Can't Be Treated As Rape Merely Over Failed Promise To Marry: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a man's conviction for rape (Section 376) and abetment to suicide (Section 306), observing that he and the deceased had a consensual relationship with an unfulfilled promise to marry.  [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 280]

Noting the lack of evidence showing he had malicious intentions while making a promise to marry, the court held that mere refusal to marry the deceased would not make him liable for abetment of suicide. 

The bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani observed,

"There is no cogent evidence on record to establish that, from the very beginning, the accused had no intention of marrying the deceased and had entered into the relationship solely to satisfy his lust. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the parents and brother of the deceased were aware of the relationship between the deceased and the accused and had not raised any objection thereto, which reflects their acceptance of the relationship".

Regarding the conviction under Section 376 IPC, the court noted that the victim's family members were aware of the relationship between the accused and the victim and had no objection to the relationship, which mitigates the assumption that the accused entered the relationship with malicious intention.

Per the prosecution, the brother of the deceased/victim had lodged an FIR that on February 10, 2020, his sister went to take vegetables to her Goats but did not return. Subsequently, on February 12, 2020, his sister was found hanging in the Arhariya field. During the investigation, the police found that the accused had committed rape with her on a false promise to marry, and thereafter she became pregnant. After the accused refused to marry the deceased, she committed suicide. 

The counsel for the appellant contended that there was no evidence on record to establish the claimed offences against him. Even though the DNA report confirms that the accused was the father of the deceased's featus but, he claimed that the relationship was consensual. Referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses claiming that the accused refused to marry unless his demand for a house was fulfilled, which the accused claimed showed that the relationship was consensual. 

The counsel for the State argued that the DNA report conclusively proved that the fetus was fathered by the accused and highlighted that the accused established the physical relationship on a false promise to marry. The counsel further argued that the accused's refusal to marry instigated the deceased and led to her suicide. 

Regarding the rape allegations, the court noted that the parents of the deceased were aware of the love relationship between the deceased and the accused and did not object to the relationship. The court further noted that despite the accused fathering the fetus, evidence shows that their relationship was consensual. 

The court noted that in cases where the promise to marry was genuine at the inception but could not be fulfilled due to supervening circumstances, no offence of rape is made out. Considering the demand for the house from the accused, the court held that there was a lack of evidence establishing this fact.

Further, the court noted that where there are two reasonable possibility arise from the adduced evidence, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. Therefore, the bench held that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged sexual relationship fell within the ambit of rape. 

Regarding the offence of abetment of suicide, the bench noted:

"As far as the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, there is no cogent, reliable, or convincing evidence on record regarding the alleged refusal of the accused to marry the deceased, as discussed hereinabove. However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the accused subsequently refused to marry the deceased and demanded a house from her, such an act, by itself, cannot be construed as instigation or abetment to commit suicide".

Noting the lack of evidence to substantiate the offence, the bench noted that the findings of the Trial Court were not sustainable. 

Therefore, the bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed the release of the accused. 

Case Title: Ram Kailash Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-6575-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 280

For Appellant: Advocate SM Shukla 

For Respondent: Advocate Shikha Baghel

Click here to read/download the Order