In a significant ruling on the law relating to consent and false promise of marriage, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that a failed consensual relationship cannot be mechanically converted into a criminal offence of rape. Upholding the acquittal of the accused, the Court held that where the woman herself had refused marriage and there was no evidence to show that the promise to marry was false from the very inception, allegations of rape could not be sustained. The judgment draws a clear line between a breach of promise arising out of personal relationships and criminal liability under Section 376 of the IPC, reiterating that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle emotional or relationship disputes.
Case Title & Court
State by Kengeri Police Station vs. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe & Another
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Bench: Hon’ble Justices H.P. Sandesh & Venkatesh Naik T
Judgment Date: 9 January 2026
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB
Facts of the Case
- The complainant and the accused met through a matrimonial website and developed a personal relationship during the COVID-19 lockdown.
- The woman alleged that the man made a promise to marry her and, on that basis, engaged in sexual relations with him.
- She subsequently withdrew from the idea of marrying him and later filed a criminal complaint claiming he had induced consent by promising marriage — effectively raising charges including rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Proceedings & Trial Court
- At the trial court level, the accused was acquitted by the Sessions Court.
- The State of Karnataka filed an appeal seeking leave to challenge that acquittal, urging the High Court to restore the conviction or order a fresh trial.
High Court’s Key Findings
✔ 1. No Proven Deception at Inception
- The High Court emphasized that for a “promise to marry” to vitiate consent and amount to rape, there must be evidence that the accused never had any real intention to marry from the beginning.
- Here, the complainant herself had earlier stated she did not trust him or want to marry him, which undercut claims of deception.
✔ 2. Sexual Intercourse Was Likely Consensual
- The court noted that although there was evidence of sexual relations (e.g., a medical finding of a ruptured hymen), there were no marks of force, resistance, or credible corroboration consistent with non-consensual activity.
✔ 3. Credibility Issues with the Complaint
- There were contradictions, delays, and inconsistent testimony regarding how and where the events occurred, weakening the prosecution’s narrative.
✔ 4. Failed Relationships ≠ Criminal Offence
- The High Court reiterated that a consensual relationship that later fails does not automatically become rape simply because a promise to marry was withdrawn.
Legal Principles Applied
- The verdict reaffirmed that:
- Consent obtained by bona fide promise to marry can become invalid only if it is proved that the promise was made with no intention to keep it; otherwise, it remains consensual.
- Regret after voluntary relations do not constitute rape, unless there was clear misrepresentation at the outset.
Outcome
- High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused on all charges — including rape and related offences — due to insufficient evidence of coercion, deceit, or absence of consent.
Why This Decision Matters
This judgment underscores the legal distinction in Indian law between:
- Breach of a promise to marry (a civil or moral issue)
vs. - Deception vitiating consent (a criminal issue)
The courts have been increasingly cautious about criminalising interpersonal relationship disputes where consensual relations later deteriorate, and have stressed the need for clear evidence of initial fraudulent intent to transform a consensual act into rape.