Not Every Breach Of Promise To Marry To Be Treated As Rape: Supreme Court

WHAT DID THE SC SAY?

• In Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Apex Court held that treating every breach of promise to marry to be false and applying the provisions of Section 376 IPC would be a folly.
• The Court noted that each case has to be evaluated on its own facts without any prior presumptions.
• The Court set aside the sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? 

• In this case, the prosecuterix filed a complaint against the appellant u/s 376 IPC on the ground that her consent for a sexual relationship with the accused was based on the false promise to marry. 
• The prosecuterix as well as the accused were married to different people and had children with their significant others.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTERIX: 

• The prosecuterix contended that in order to gain sexual favours from her, the accused promised to marry her with malafide intentions.
• Furthermore, the consent was tainted as the accused failed to fulfil his promise and is, thus, liable u/s 376 IPC.
• The accused contended that his promise to marry the prosecuterix was not based on malafide intentions.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION: 

• The Ld. Court observed that there lays a difference between making a false promise and committing a breach of that promise.
• The Court further observed that the prosecutrix being a married woman and having three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the act she was consenting to.
• Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and lifted the sentence of the appellant accused.

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below!