Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges in Consensual Relationship Case: Sonu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 128
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M.R. Shah, J
Can a sexual relationship between two individuals, initially consensual, be classified as rape if one party later refuses to marry the other? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of rape following a broken promise of marriage. The court clarified the legal position regarding consent in such relationships, emphasizing that a mere breach of promise does not equate to rape. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, who authored the judgment, and M.R. Shah, J.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the second respondent, alleging that the appellant had established a friendship with her and promised to marry her. The second respondent claimed that they engaged in a physical relationship for approximately one and a half years, during which time she also interacted with the appellant’s family. The appellant, who had initially agreed to marry the second respondent, later refused to do so. The second respondent also stated that she was assaulted by the appellant’s sister and thrown out of the appellant’s house.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the offense of rape. The section states that sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman constitutes rape. The term “consent” is crucial here. The Supreme Court has previously held that consent must be an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. Further, the court has also held that if the consent is obtained by creating a “misconception of fact,” then that consent will be vitiated. The concept of “misconception of fact” is relevant in cases where a promise of marriage is made. If the promise of marriage is false from the beginning, 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, then there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s “consent”.

The relevant legal provisions are:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of rape.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the recording of confessions and statements.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the relationship with the second respondent was entirely consensual.
• The appellant contended that a mere reading of the FIR and the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shows no intention to not marry the second respondent at the time of entering the relationship.
• The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], which held that a breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the start.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The second respondent argued that the appellant had promised to marry her, which led to their physical relationship.
• The second respondent contended that the FIR indicated the appellant’s assurance of marriage, which was later broken, thus constituting rape.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the High Court’s decision, relying on the observations in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608].

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, establish the offense of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608]: The Supreme Court of India. This case was extensively relied upon by both the appellant and the respondent. The Supreme Court in this case had held that a breach of a promise to marry cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The Court also held that the promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608] to hold that the promise of marriage must be a false promise from the start to constitute rape. The Court held that the principles laid down in this case directly applied to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The consensual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent.
• The absence of any evidence to suggest that the promise to marry was false at the inception.
• The fact that the refusal to marry was a subsequent event and did not vitiate the initial consent.
• The principles laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608].

The Court emphasized that a mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the beginning.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court gave 60% weightage to the factual aspects of the case (consensual relationship, no false promise, subsequent refusal) and 40% weightage to the legal considerations (interpretation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the principles laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608]).

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A consensual relationship, even if followed by a refusal to marry, does not constitute rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• To establish rape in such cases, it must be proven that the promise to marry was false from the beginning and that 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.
• The court emphasized that a mere breach of promise to marry does not equate to rape.
• This judgment clarifies the legal position on consent in sexual relationships and the interpretation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 26 September 2019 were set aside.
• The charge sheet dated 25 April 2018 was quashed.
• The order of the trial Court dated 3 October 2018 taking cognizance was also quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a consensual relationship, followed by a refusal to marry, does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the promise of marriage was false at the inception. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608] and clarifies the legal position on consent in such cases.

Conclusion

In the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, the Supreme Court quashed the rape charges against the appellant, holding that the relationship was consensual and there was no evidence of a false promise to marry at the inception. The court reiterated that a mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape. This judgment clarifies the legal position on consent in cases involving a broken promise of marriage.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Rape

Parent Category: Consent

Child Category: Consensual Relationship

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for consensual relationships?
A: This judgment clarifies that if you are in a consensual relationship, and your partner later refuses to marry you, it does not automatically mean that they have committed rape. The key is whether the promise to marry was genuine at the beginning.

Q: What is the difference between a breach of promise and a false promise in the context of this judgment?
A: A breach of promise is when someone initially intends to marry but later changes their mind. A false promise is when someone never intended to marry from the start and used the promise to get into a sexual relationship. Only a false promise constitutes rape.

Q: Does this mean that a person can never be charged with rape if they initially promise to marry?
A: No. If it can be proven that the person never intended to marry and used the promise as a way to have sexual relations, then they can be charged with rape. The intention at the start of the relationship is crucial.

Q: What should I do if I believe I have been a victim of rape under these circumstances?
A: You should consult a lawyer and file a police complaint. It is important to gather any evidence that shows that the promise to marry was false from the beginning.