Promise To Marry Doesn't Ordinarily Vitiate Consent If Both Parties Know Woman Is Already Married: Rajasthan High Court

While setting aside charges framed against a man for offences including repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Rajasthan High Court held that where both parties are conscious that the prosecutrix's first marriage is subsisting, it would ordinarily be difficult to conclude that she was induced into a physical relationship solely on the promise of marriage.The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bikaner, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 450, 420, 376(2)(n), 366 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.For context, as per the FIR, that the complainant was married to a third party and after being driven out of her matrimonial home, was residing at her parental house. It was submitted that 10 months before filing the FIR, she met the petitioner and they developed physical relations, allegedly on the pretext of false promise of marriage.It was alleged that one day the petitioner called the complainant with her Aadhar Card to solemnize their marriage but thereafter did not fulfil that promise. Hence, the FIR was filed for aggravated rape. It was contended by the petitioner that the complainant was a mature woman who was fully conscious of her marital status and capable of understanding the consequences of her actions. Hence, it could not be said that she was induced into physical intimacy with the petitioner solely based on promise of marriage. The petitioner further submitted that the fact the physical relations continued for more than 10 months was itself reflective of the fact that the relationship was consensual. After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to Section 376(2)(n) that prescribed punishment for offence of committing rape repeatedly upon the same woman. It was observed that “repeatedly” meant more than one distinct act of rape committed at different points of time, and not a continuing consensual relationship which was alleged to be non-consensual. A further reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Pramod Kumar Navratna v State of Chhattisgarh which held that law did not recognize second marriage during subsistence of the first one. Hence, when parties were aware of the married status of prosecutrix, it was difficult to conclude that she was induced into physical intimacy solely based on promise of marriage. In this background, in relation to the present matter, the Court observed, “In the present case, it is an admitted position that the complainant was legally married to Ishwar Ram and that no decree of divorce had been obtained at the relevant point of time. Consequently, any alleged promise of marriage could not have been lawfully fulfilled unless the existing marriage had first bee dissolved in accordance with law. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant's consent was obtained solely on a legally enforceable promise of marriage.”It was further highlighted that the admitted fact revealed that the complainant voluntarily maintained a physical relationship with the petitioner over a considerable period, consensually, and the FIR was registered only after the relationship deteriorated. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was discharged from the charges. Title: Mukesh v State & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 309Click Here To Read/Download Order

Promise To Marry Doesn't Ordinarily Vitiate Consent If Both Parties Know Woman Is Already Married: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Promise To Marry Doesn't Ordinarily Vitiate Consent If Both Parties Know Woman Is Already Married: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers