Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the offence of rape on the false promise of marriage cannot be presumed just because the accused had a sexual relationship with the complainant and then married another woman.
A Vandiperiyar native had filed an appeal against the sessions court verdict that sentenced him to life imprisonment in the case of rape on the false promise of marriage. The Division Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath and Justice A Muhamed Mustaque set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
The offence of rape on false promise of marriage can be presumed only if having a sexual relationship by not disclosing truth, misconception or denying the woman the autonomy to take a decision on it, the HC held.
The accused, who was in love with the young woman for years, had sexual relationship with her but after his parents objected to the marriage, he married another woman.
The HC pointed out that the woman's consent was obtained for the sexual relationship. The prosecution could not prove that her consent was obtained through false promises or by non-disclosure of facts. The law aims to protect the woman's autonomy to take decisions on matters of sex. If prior to the sexual relationship, the accused had not disclosed the facts or misled the woman, it would affect her judgement.
The court remarked that a decision should be taken in the case while evaluating the circumstances too. The incident pertaining to the case happened right before the accused married another woman. The court also pointed out that the accused and the woman were in a romantic relationship for over 10 years and that his parents did not agree to a marriage without dowry. It was the accused’s intention to marry the woman. But it is clear that he was not able to fulfil his promise due to his family's objections.
The court observed that it can be said there was breach of promise; but it cannot be presumed that he gave a false promise of marriage. Nor can it be presumed that he secured the woman's consent by concealing facts. The High Court held that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted him.
