LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Every False Promise Of Marriage Will Not Amount To Rape: Supreme Court

Bidisha Ghoshal ,
  04 February 2023       Share Bookmark

Court :
The Supreme Court of India
Brief :

Citation :
SLP (Crl.) No. 8586/ 2017


Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi).


30 January 2023.


Justice Bela M. Trivedi.


Petitioner: Naim Ahamed.

Respondent: State (NCT of Delhi).


This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 46/2016. The High Court modified the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 67/2015. The High Court's judgment and order affects the rights of the appellant-accused, and thus he is appealing the decision.


  • The appellant (the accused) was found guilty for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 
  • The Sessions Court sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. 
  • The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant, modified the sentence and reduced the substantive sentence to 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 
  • The High Court also confirmed the direction with regard to the payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the prosecutrix. The appellant has paid the compensation amount as directed.
  • In this case, the accused denied the allegations levelled against him and tried to explain the circumstances. He claimed that the prosecutrix was aware that he was a married person having children, and that she had also met his wife at his house. He further stated that he was providing financial help to the prosecutrix regularly, and when he refused to fulfil her demand of Rs.1.5 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs, she lodged a false case against him. 
  • However, the Sessions Court after examining the evidence on record concluded that the accused was guilty and convicted him accordingly.


  • The the appellant's defense was that the sexual relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual since 2009-2010 and continued till the filing of the complaint in 2015. 
  • The appellant's counsel argued that because the prosecutrix had continued the relationship for so long, it could not be said to have been under the misconception of fact as defined in Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, and thus could not be considered rape under Section 375. 
  • The counsel then cited cases Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi), and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others to support his argument.
  • In this case, the court appointed Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate as an Amicus Curiae to assist them in representing the prosecutrix, who did not have a lawyer. Ms. Jaising argued that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and the court must consider whether the accused falsely promised marriage or simply breached the promise. She also provided evidence and decisions from the court to support her submissions.


  • Sh. K.L Janjani is arguing that the Sessions Court and High Court have found the appellant-accused guilty of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
  • He is also arguing that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the appellant-accused lured the prosecutrix into having a sexual relationship with him by giving her a false promise of marriage, and then breached this promise after she gave birth to a child. 
  • Janjani is arguing that the prosecutrix's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact, and so her consent was vitiated.


  • This court observes that this case deals with a woman who was married and had three children. She had a relationship with the accused for five years. During this time, the prosecutrix did not have any complaint against the accused of him having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also obtained a divorce from her husband in 2014. When they had disputes in 2015, she filed the present complaint. 
  • The court found that the prosecutrix was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions. 
  • As such, the court found that the accused was not guilty of rape and acquitted him. The court also ordered the appellant to pay compensation to the prosecutrix, which he had accepted and paid.
  • The Court ruled that recording of evidence in the translated form in English language only is not permissible, and that the original deposition of the witness must be taken into account and not the translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge. 
  • The Court directed that all courts while recording the evidence of the witnesses must comply with the provisions of Section 277 of the Cr.P.C. 
  • The Court then set aside the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court and acquitted the appellant-accused and directed him to be set free forthwith.


In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the appellant-accused of the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts. The Court also directed the appellant to pay compensation to the prosecutrix, which he had accepted and paid. The Court held that the prosecutrix was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions and that the accused was not guilty of rape.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

"Loved reading this piece by Bidisha Ghoshal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Published in Others
Views : 491


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query