Not necessary that every breach of promise to marry is false promise: Supreme Court acquits rape convict

The Supreme Court on Monday held that it would be incorrect to treat each and every breach of promise to marry as a false promise and thereby prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi)]..A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi was of the view that in a case of a breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry the prosecutrix, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise.The Court, therefore, acquitted a person convicted by the courts below for rape. The Court was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Delhi High Court which had upheld the order of the trial court convicting the accused-appellant for rape under Section 376 IPC..As per the facts of the case, the prosecutrix was a married woman with three children. The accused-appellant was residing in a tenanted premises which was situated in front of the prosecutrix house. The prosecutrix developed a liking for the accused, and both started having sexual relationship.In the year 2011, prosecutrix delivered a child fathered by the accused and, thereafter, went to the native place of the accused in 2012 where she came to know that the accused-appellant was a married man having children. However, she still continued to live with the accused in separate premises.In 2014, the prosecutrix took divorce by mutual consent from her husband and thereafter permanently left her three children and her husband. However, in 2015, the prosecutrix lodged a rape complaint alleging that she had consented for sexual relationship with the accused only because the accused had promised her to marry but he subsequently went back on that promise.The trial court convicted the accused-appellant which was also upheld by the High Court.This led to the appeal before the top court..The Supreme Court held that there was a fallacy on the part of the courts below to hold the appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC.The Court at the very outset proceeded to distinguish between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise. It stated that in false promise, the appellant-accused right from the beginning would not have had any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceived the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust.In case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused-appellant might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances which prevented him to fulfill his promise.In this backdrop, the Court observed that in the present case, the woman was aware of what she was doing and yet betrayed her husband and three children by entering into a relationship with the accused. "The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused," the Court noted. The Court also noted that till the time prosecutrix was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011 and gave birth to his child, she did not have any complaint against the accused-appellant of cheating her. However, it was only in 2015 that she filed a complaint against the appellant which in itself seemed doubtful.While setting aside the conviction of the accused-appellant, the Court observed:"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the accused deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him."The appellant was, therefore, acquitted..Advocates Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Anupam Bhati, Rizwan Ahmed, Amir Kaleem, Vikramjeet Singh Ranga, Nakul Chaudhary and Waseem Akhatar Khan appeared for the appellant.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising served as Amicus Curiae.Advocates Gurmeet Singh Makker, KL Janjani, Ketan Paul, Mohd Akhil, Deepabali Dutta and TS Sabarish appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]