The mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case.
In order to offence of rape to be made out, two conditions need to be satisfied i.e.
(i) that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning,
(ii) and that the false promise of marriage has a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.
If the initial promise to marry was not in bad faith but later circumstances arose such that the boy could not get married even though he wanted to. It was only the subsequent circumstances that prevented fulfilment of the promise to marry.
If a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration.
In a situation where a physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the man to marry her.
The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.
A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage.
FIR against Rape for false promise of marriage must disclose :
(i) Physical Relationship was forceful
(ii) It must disclose any circumstance suggesting deceit or inducement on the
part of the accused.
When a woman who willingly engages in a long-term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by misconception of fact or false promise of marriage made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
The accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations.
There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. Thus, the court must examine whether there was, at an early stage, a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives. Here may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances. The failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact.