Archive · 13 Nov 2025
Delhi High Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Over Marriage Promise
Imagine someone promised to marry another person and then they spent time together.
Later, the person who promised to marry backed out.
The court had to decide if this was a crime.
The judge said that just because someone changed their mind later about getting married, it doesn't automatically mean they lied from the very beginning when they made the promise.
To prove it was a lie from the start, you need more evidence.
The judge also looked at how long they knew each other, that they were together many times, and there wasn't much proof like medical records.
Because of this, the judge decided there wasn't enough proof that the person didn't want to get married when they first promised, or that the other person didn't agree to be together.
So, the court said the man was not guilty of rape in this specific situation and let him go.
The Delhi High Court acquitted a man convicted of rape on the false promise of marriage.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri stated that a subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically make the original promise false.
To prove the promise was false from the inception, the prosecution must show intent to deceive existed at the very outset.
The court observed a voluntary association and repeated sexual relations over months, noting a lack of corroborative medical or forensic evidence.
The High Court set aside the rape conviction, finding the prosecution failed to prove the relationship was non-consensual or vitiated by misconception.
- Who
- A man convicted of rape, the Delhi High Court (Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri), and the complainant woman
- What
- The Delhi High Court acquitted a man convicted on charges of rape under the false promise of marriage, stating a subsequent refusal to marry does not render the original promise false.
- When
- Wednesday (date not specified beyond 'Wednesday')
- Where
- Delhi High Court
- Why
- The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the physical relationship was non-consensual or that the consent was vitiated by a false promise from the outset, citing the duration of the relationship, continued contact, repeated relations, and lack of corroborative evidence.
Complainant's Allegations
Defendant's Defense & Court's Rationale
Nature of Promise to Marry
Complainant's Allegations
The complainant alleged the man repeatedly promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse on this assurance.
Defendant's Defense & Court's Rationale
The court ruled that a subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically make the original promise false. The prosecution must prove the intent to deceive existed from the outset.
Consent and Relationship Duration
Complainant's Allegations
The complainant stated sexual intercourse occurred despite her resistance, under the repeated assurance of marriage.
Defendant's Defense & Court's Rationale
The court observed a close, voluntary association for several months with repeated sexual relations, suggesting consent and a consensual relationship breakdown, not a non-consensual act vitiated by false promise.
Evidence and Timing
Complainant's Allegations
The complainant's complaint was lodged after the man refused to marry her.
Defendant's Defense & Court's Rationale
The court noted a significant lapse of time between the alleged first act and the complaint, continued contact, repeated relations, and absence of corroborative medical/forensic material, raising doubt about non-consensual intercourse.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Judge
- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
- Verdict Date
- Wednesday
- Original Conviction
- Rape under Section 376 IPC
- Original Sentence
- Seven years imprisonment
- Outcome
- Acquitted, rape conviction set aside
