Rape : False promise of marriage must be false from inception and made with intention to deceive

Delhi High Court Acquits Mahinder Soni in Alleged Rape Case Over False Promise of Marriage Court finds consensual relationship with no evidence of deceptive intent from inception; breakdown of relationship not sufficient for criminal charges.

In a significant judgment delivered on November 12, 2025, the Delhi High Court acquitted Mahinder Soni, who was previously convicted by the Sessions Court for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on allegations of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri presided over the case, overturning the conviction and setting aside the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The case originated from an FIR filed in 2012 by the prosecutrix, who alleged that Soni, a tenant in her house, had engaged in sexual intercourse with her under the pretext of marriage, but later refused to fulfill the promise. The prosecutrix claimed that these incidents occurred at various locations, including a guest house and in Soni's vehicle, and continued over several months.

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including testimonies from the prosecutrix, her family members, and medical reports. The judgment highlighted several key points:

• 1. Consensual Relationship: The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix had maintained a close and voluntary association with the appellant for several months, frequently meeting him and engaging in sexual relations. Such prolonged interaction typically presumes valid consent.

• 2. Lack of Deceptive Intent: The Court underscored the necessity for the prosecution to demonstrate that the promise of marriage was false from the inception and made with the intent to deceive. The evidence did not convincingly establish that Soni harbored a deceptive intent at the outset.

• 3. Breakdown of Relationship: Referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court, the judgment reiterated that the mere failure of a relationship to result in marriage does not automatically imply criminal culpability if the relationship was consensual.

• 4. Delay in Complaint: The Court noted the significant delay in lodging the complaint, which further cast doubt on the prosecutrix's allegations of non-consensual intercourse.

• 5. Inconclusive Medical Evidence: The medical and forensic evidence presented did not corroborate the claim of forcible sexual intercourse, as there were no injuries or forensic findings to support such allegations.

The Court's decision also referenced notable Supreme Court judgments, including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which provide guidance on distinguishing between consensual relationships and those vitiated by false promises.

Ultimately, the judgment reflects a careful consideration of the facts, emphasizing the importance of proving intent to deceive from the outset in cases involving promises of marriage. The acquittal is a reminder of the nuanced approach required in handling allegations of this nature, ensuring that consensual relationships are not unjustly criminalized due to subsequent disputes.

Bottom Line:

Allegation of sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage - Prosecution must establish that the promise was false from inception and made with intention to deceive. Breakdown of relationship cannot automatically warrant criminal proceedings for rape if consensual sexual relations were maintained.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 376, Section 420, Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code Section 164, Section 313.

Mahinder Soni v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807218