Can a man be convicted for rape only because marriage was delayed after a consensual relationship? Jharkhand High Court set aside a rape conviction after finding that both adults were in a consensual relationship and later married with children.
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted in a rape case based on an allegation of physical relations on a promise of marriage. The Court held that when two adults are in a consensual relationship, the case cannot automatically become rape only because marriage did not happen immediately.
Justice Rajesh Kumar allowed the criminal appeal filed by Aalim Ansari and set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000.
The case started from a complaint filed by the woman in January 2012. She alleged that the appellant had physical relations with her for around eight months after assuring her that he would marry her. She claimed that after she became pregnant, she repeatedly asked him to solemnise the marriage, but he kept delaying it and later refused.
On this basis, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 493 and 506 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. However, during trial, charge was framed only under Section 376 IPC.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including panchayat members, the woman, the investigating officer and the doctor. Some witnesses said that after the woman became pregnant, a village panchayat was held and the appellant first agreed to marry her but later refused.
But during cross-examination, the case took a different turn. The woman herself admitted that she was in a love relationship with the appellant. She also stated that they later got married, were living happily, and had two children together. She further admitted that the criminal case was filed before their marriage took place.
The father of the woman and another prosecution witness also admitted that the appellant and the woman were husband and wife. This showed that the relationship was not a simple case of force, deception or exploitation, but a relationship between two consenting adults where marriage was delayed and later solemnised.
The appellant’s lawyers argued that the relationship was consensual from the beginning. They submitted that both parties were major, understood the consequences of their relationship, and the case was filed only because there was delay in marriage after pregnancy. They argued that once the parties had married and were living together with children, the conviction under Section 376 IPC could not stand.
The State opposed the appeal and supported the conviction passed by the trial court.
After looking at the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence of rape. The Court noted that both parties were adults and the relationship was consensual. The woman’s own statement weakened the allegation that her consent was taken by fraud or false promise of marriage.
The Court observed:
“Merely having a sexual relationship and the bald statement that on the false pretext of marriage, the consent has been obtained, is not enough to convict the appellant, even this factual matrix has been negated by the victim in her deposition.”
The High Court held that the basic ingredients required for conviction under Section 376 IPC were not proved. The Court therefore quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
This case again shows how a man can face years of criminal trial, stigma and the threat of imprisonment even when the relationship was consensual and later turned into marriage. A delayed marriage cannot, by itself, be treated as rape unless deception from the very beginning is clearly proved.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed. Since the appellant was already on bail during the appeal, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. The Court also directed that the trial court records be sent back immediately.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED
| LAW / SECTION | WHAT IT DEALS WITH | HOW IT CAME UP IN THIS CASE |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The High Court later set aside this conviction. |
| Section 493 IPC | Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage | The FIR was registered under this section also, as the allegation involved physical relations on the assurance of marriage. |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | This section was also added in the FIR, alleging threat or intimidation. |
| Criminal Appeal (S.J.) | Appeal before High Court challenging conviction/sentence in a criminal case | The appellant approached the Jharkhand High Court through Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.118 of 2021 against his conviction. |
| Sessions Trial | Trial before a Sessions Court for serious criminal offences | The trial was conducted as Sessions Trial No.116 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal. |
| Police Station Case / P.S. Case | FIR registered at the police station | The matter arose from Ranga P.S. Case No.06 of 2012. |
| G.R. Case | General Register case number used before Magistrate court after FIR | The case was also recorded as G.R. No.33 of 2012. |
CASE DETAILS
| DETAIL | INFORMATION |
| Case Title | Aalim Ansari Versus The State of Jharkhand |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.118 of 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:JHHC:18288 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar |
| Order Number / Date | Order No.08 / Dated: 23rd June, 2026 |
| Appellant | Aalim Ansari |
| Respondent | The State of Jharkhand |
| Trial Court Judgment Challenged | Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2021 |
| Trial Court | Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal |
| Sessions Trial Number | Sessions Trial No.116 of 2012 |
| Police Station Case | Ranga P.S. Case No.06 of 2012 |
| G.R. Case Number | G.R. No.33 of 2012 |
COUNSELS
| PARTY | COUNSEL |
| For the Appellant | Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Ms. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate |
| For the State | Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Consensual relationship is not rape by default. Two adults were in a love relationship, and the Court refused to treat it as rape merely because marriage was delayed.
- One allegation can put a man through years of trial. The man faced conviction, stigma and seven years’ sentence before the High Court corrected the mistake.
- False promise of marriage must be proved, not just alleged. A bald statement that consent was taken on promise of marriage is not enough for conviction.
- The woman’s own testimony changed the case. She admitted love relationship, later marriage, happy life and two children, weakening the prosecution case.
- Men need legal protection from criminalisation of relationships. When adult relationships fail, delay or become complicated, criminal law should not be used as a weapon against men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
