Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal by a woman against the acquittal of a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, holding that when two adults live together as a live-in couple for a considerable period, a presumption arises that the relationship rests on valid consent.
The Court found the Sessions Court’s view plausible and saw no perversity warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani, was hearing a Criminal Appeal (against acquittal) filed under Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023, by the victim against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 457 of 2021. The Sessions Court had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 323 of the IPC, giving him the benefit of doubt.
As recorded by the Court, the complainant, a college student, alleged that after a year-long relationship she lived with the accused from 13.08.2019 under a written agreement dated 14.08.2019, during which he forcibly established physical relations on a false promise of marriage and assaulted her. On 29.01.2020 he allegedly threatened to take his own life if she did not get the agreement cancelled, and the FIR was registered on 30.01.2020 at Vadaj Police Station.
The appellant argued that the cancellation agreement was procured on the pretext of marriage and under threat, that her consistent testimony and the medical evidence of injuries were ignored, and that the FIR lodged the next day ruled out an afterthought. The State supported her.
The High Court found no infirmity in the Sessions Court’s findings. The victim had told the treating doctor that the two were in love and had lived together under a friendship agreement for about eight months, while her father and uncle admitted she went to the accused of her own will, and the independent house owner said they lived as husband and wife without any complaint.
The Court reproduced the deed of 14.08.2019, in which the parties declared that they lived together of their own free will without inducement, threat or coercion, and the deed of 29.01.2020, by which they decided of their own will to live separately. It held that the second deed contains no recital of beating, threat or forcible intercourse, and that, although such an agreement has no probative value as a contract to marry, this is not a case of a promise to marry made with dishonest intention from the start to obtain sexual favours.
The Court also upheld the findings that the victim’s evidence had contradictions, the panch witnesses turned hostile, and the original agreements, on which the prosecution case was built, were never seized.
On the law, the Court noted that an acquittal is interfered with only in exceptional cases or where perverse, citing Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 67. It relied on Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, which cites Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, and Sonu alias Subash Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 517, for the distinction between a false promise and mere breach of a promise. It observed:
“If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for a considerable period and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of relationship being fully aware and conversant of its consequences.”
The Court held that the expression of a wish to formalise a long-running live-in relationship by marriage does not by itself show that the relationship was a consequence of that wish, that a dispute between the parties cannot be given the colour of a criminal prosecution, and that courts should presume implied consent from the length of the relationship and conduct of the parties.
It held that refusal to marry cannot ground a prosecution for rape here, that the allegation of force used to extract the cancellation deed does not inspire confidence, and that the Sessions Court’s view was plausible.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Rishabh R. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent (State): Mr. L.B. Dabhi, APP.
Case Title: XYZ (Victim) vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 2273 of 2026
![Supreme Court Affirms Women's Right to Reproductive Choices as Central to Human Dignity [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2023/08/lj_5007_Right_to_Reproductive.jpg)
