In this case, the Punjab and Haryana HC acquitted the man accused of rape who had been convicted and sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment on allegations of having a sexual relationship with a married woman on the false promise of marriage.

Court observed, “the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the appellant for a period of more than two years during which period, she remained married to her husband. In the fact situation, her claim that the appellant had physical relations with her and committed rape upon her on the assurance that he would marry her is per se false and unacceptable.”

The matter arose from a 2016 case in which the complainant, a married woman and mother of two, claimed that the accused had induced her into sexual relations under the assurance that he would marry her.
The appellant argued that the trial itself was vitiated since Section 225 of CrPC requires that even in private complaint cases, the sessions trial must be conducted by a public prosecutor. It was further submitted that the complainant, being a married woman, could not have been induced to engage in physical relations on the pretext of marriage.

The Court noted that although the trial had been conducted by a private counsel instead of a public prosecutor, this did not cause any prejudice to the accused. Turning to the merits, the Court emphasized the marital status of the prosecutrix.

Court rejected the complainant’s claim that she was unhappy in her marriage and seeking divorce. It observed that she was still residing with her in-laws and had filed no litigation, including a divorce petition.

Referring to her testimony, Court said, “Her statement regarding sexual intercourse by the appellant 55-60 times during the year 2012-13 is conspicuous by absence of dates and other material particulars. She admitted that the physical intimacy 55-60 times in the year 2012-13 was in her in-laws' house.”

Court concluded that the case was one of a consensual relationship turning sour after the accused married another woman.

It observed, “The assertion that she was induced into sexual relationship and raped by the appellant on the basis of a promise to marry stands irrefutably falsified. It was a clear case of a consensual relationship turning sour and could not have been made the foundation for setting the criminal law in motion to wreak vengeance on the appellant.”

Therefore, HC set aside the trial court’s findings, ruling that the presumption u/s 114-A of Evidence Act and Section 90 IPC could not apply in this case. It held, “Though the appellant cannot be regarded as completely innocent in the fact situation, yet such a relationship based on consent cannot be made the foundation of a charge as serious as one under Section 376 IPC.”