Introduction:

In the case of Raj Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr. Revision No. 524 of 2024), the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, addressed the complex interplay between long-term consensual relationships and allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, Raj Kumar Sharma, challenged the trial court’s decision to frame charges against him for rape and dowry demands, asserting that the relationship with the complainant was consensual and spanned over five years.

Background:

The complainant and the accused had been in a relationship since 2014, having decided to marry after 2-3 years due to the accused’s family constructing a house. They got engaged in 2015, and the complainant moved to Chandigarh for exam preparations, during which the accused frequently visited her, and they engaged in physical relations. The marriage was postponed to 2017 due to a family mishap, and later to 2019, and then to 2021. The complainant alleged that the accused’s family demanded ₹5 lakhs and a vehicle as dowry. An FIR was registered, and the investigation concluded that the accused never intended to marry the complainant, leading to the filing of a charge sheet.

Arguments:

Accused’s Contentions:

The accused argued that the complainant was a mature, educated individual who voluntarily engaged in a consensual relationship for over five years. He contended that there was no material evidence indicating that the complainant was misled or that he refused to marry her. Regarding the dowry allegations, he claimed there was no evidence of receiving ₹5 lakhs for house construction or marriage purposes.

Prosecution’s Stand:

The prosecution maintained that the accused had no intention to marry the complainant and used the promise of marriage to engage in sexual relations. They highlighted the dowry demand as a condition for proceeding with the marriage.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

Justice Kainthla observed that the complaint lacked any specific refusal by the accused to marry the complainant or indications that the marriage had become impossible. The court emphasised that a long-term consensual relationship makes it challenging to determine that the sexual relationship was based solely on a promise to marry. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the court reiterated that a breach of a genuine promise to marry, due to unforeseen circumstances, does not constitute a false promise attracting the penal provisions of rape under Section 375 IPC.

Regarding the dowry allegations, the court found no evidence that ₹5 lakhs was taken by the accused for house construction or marriage-related purposes. It was merely stated that a demand for ₹5 lakhs was made by the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the accused and set aside the trial court’s order.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s nuanced approach in distinguishing between consensual relationships and instances where consent is obtained under pretences. It reinforces the principle that not all breaches of promise to marry amount to rape, especially in the context of long-term relationships where mutual consent is evident. The court’s reliance on established legal precedents ensures a balanced interpretation of the law, safeguarding individual rights while upholding the sanctity of legal provisions.