Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In an exceptional turn of events on Thursday (May 15), the Supreme Court suspended the sentence of a man, who was convicted for rape on the false pretext of marriage, after he and the complainant-woman agreed to marry each other.

The Court granted interim bail to the man to enable him to marry the woman.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma was hearing the case where the petitioner was convicted by a trial court under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly engaging in a long-term physical relationship with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. His conviction was later affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed his application for suspension of sentence.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the convict approached the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal.

Aware of the sensitive nature of the case, the bench took the extraordinary step of conducting in-camera proceedings in its chambers. Both parties, along with their parents and legal counsel, were summoned for a confidential discussion in the pre-lunch session.

The bench allowed time for the parties to engage in a private dialogue. When the matter was recalled later in open court, the petitioner and the prosecutrix unequivocally expressed their willingness to marry each other. The Court, noting the mutual consent and prospective reconciliation, directed the parties' parents to work out the details of the marriage “as expeditiously as possible.”

"The petitioner and respondent No.2 have unequivocally stated before us that they are willing to marry each other. The details of their marriage shall be worked out by their respective parents and we hope that the marriage takes place as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, we suspend the sentence and release the petitioner on bail.", the court noted.

The case has been adjourned to July 25, 2025, and marked as part-heard, indicating the Court's continued oversight of the matter.

Background

The case arose from a First Information Report lodged at the Women Police Station in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant alleged that she had been in a relationship with the Petitioner since 2016 and that he repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of marriage. Despite assurances, including a notarized affidavit in 2018 promising marriage, the petitioner ultimately refused to marry her, prompting the FIR.

Petitioner's counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, that the prosecutrix was a major throughout, and that her parents, when examined during the trial, were declared hostile and admitted the complaint was lodged under pressure. Petitioner also contended that he had completed his MBBS and had bright future prospects, and that prolonged incarceration would be detrimental to his career and rehabilitation.

Looking towards the sensitivity of the matter, the Court, instead of deciding on merits, had adopted a nuanced approach to recognize the value of restitution and closure in cases involving mutual adult consent.

Case No : SLP (Crl) 4951/2025

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Samant Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR