XXXX v. XXXX, 2025
The Court distinguished between false promise-induced consent and consensual relationships, noting that consent by a married adult woman cannot be easily attributed to misconception under Section 90 IPC.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
26 August 2025
Judges
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The prosecutrix, a married woman, accused the appellant of rape, claiming he had sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage.
-
She alleged the relationship continued for over two years while she was still residing with her in-laws and her marriage was subsisting.
-
The alleged incidents of intimacy (55-60 times) occurred between 2012-13.
-
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 9 years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court.
-
On appeal, the High Court examined the nature of consent, her marital status, and the credibility of her claims.
Issues
-
Whether a married woman can be said to be induced into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage?
-
Whether the prosecution’s conduct under Section 225 CrPC vitiated the trial?
-
Whether the sexual relationship was consensual or constituted rape under the law?
Judgement
-
The conviction and sentence of the appellant was set aside.
-
The Court held that the relationship was consensual, and the prosecutrix's claim of inducement by false promise was not believable.
-
Section 90 IPC was held inapplicable, as the prosecutrix was a mature, married woman, capable of understanding her actions.
-
The absence of specific dates, the long duration of the relationship, and the setting (her in-laws’ house) all undermined the credibility of her claim.
Held
-
The Court observed that the case was not a matter of inducement or misconception, but of consensual promiscuity.
-
The prosecutrix was not naive or innocent, but a grown woman, mother of two, and ten years older than the appellant.
-
A consensual relationship turning sour cannot form the basis for a rape conviction.
-
Section 225 CrPC non-compliance did not vitiate the trial, as the appellant was not denied a fair opportunity to defend.
Analysis
-
The Court distinguished between false promise-induced consent and consensual relationships, noting that consent by a married adult woman cannot be easily attributed to misconception under Section 90 IPC.
-
The Court called out the reckless disregard for the institution of marriage by the prosecutrix.
-
The judgment sets a clear precedent that adults in consensual extra-marital relationships cannot later weaponize criminal law due to breakdown or bitterness.
-
The Court exercised judicial caution in addressing the misuse of Section 376 IPC in the context of soured romantic/sexual relationships.