Consent Vitiated If Promise To Marry Was Made With Intent To Deceive Into Sexual Relations: Bombay High Court

Post By 24law
February 26, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Bombay High Court has held that if a man makes a false promise to marry with the intention of deceiving a woman into engaging in sexual relations, it constitutes 'misconception of fact' and vitiates her consent under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court upheld the rape conviction of a man accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor under the pretext of marriage.

Key Observations by the Court

Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while dismissing the appeal of the accused, observed: "Where promise to marry is false and intention of maker at the time of making promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive a girl to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates girl's 'consent.' It is not merely a case of breach of promise but it is a case only to seduce the false promise was made and the victim was subjected for sexual assault on misconception of fact." The Court further held that since the victim was below sixteen years of age, her consent was legally irrelevant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Case Background

The case involved an appeal by the accused, who was convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Bhandara on September 9, 2022, for raping a minor girl. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(h) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the victim worked at a fruit juice center, where she met the accused, who frequently visited the shop. He persistently requested her phone number, and after obtaining it, began communicating with her. On October 7, 2018, the accused forcefully took the victim to a room, promised to marry her, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. This continued multiple times. When the victim later missed her menstrual cycle, the accused gave her pills and continued the sexual activity. Eventually, she became pregnant, and upon requesting him to marry her, he refused, leading her to file an FIR.

Court's Findings

The Court noted that this was not a case of a consensual love affair but of deliberate deception: "It is also not the case of the accused that the victim was having any love and affection for him. Though he stated that she has having one sided love affair and though his engagement with the victim to have physical relationship and the defence taken by him that the victim is having one sided love affair, the same itself is sufficient to show his intention. It appears that the intention of the accused, as per the testimony of the victim, right from the beginning was not honest and he kept promising that he will marry her, till she became pregnant."

Medical and DNA Evidence

The Court also relied on medical evidence and DNA test results, which confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the victim’s child. "This fact is apparent from the DNA Report. It is more than clear, that the accused made a false promise that he would marry her, from the fact that no circumstances are brought on record by the accused to show that at the relevant time he was intending to marry her, but the circumstances are such that he could not perform the marriage with her."

The Court reinstated that a promise to marry, if made with no intention to fulfill it, amounts to deception and vitiates consent under Section 375 IPC. The Court cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court held: "Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates the woman’s 'consent'."

Verdict

Upholding the conviction, the Court emphasized that the accused had misled the victim by making a false promise of marriage with the sole purpose of engaging in sexual relations. Since the victim was a minor, her consent was immaterial under the POCSO Act. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating: "The accused completely misled her by promising her for marriage. This kind of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to fulfill the promise and persuaded a girl to believe that he is going to marry and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception cannot be treated to be a consent."