The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the acquittal of a man accused of rape on the promise of marriage, after the complainant herself admitted she was unwilling to marry him. The ruling reinforces that consensual relationships cannot be criminalised later when personal decisions change.
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the acquittal of a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, clearly holding that the complainant’s own statements destroyed the prosecution case. The Court rejected the appeal filed by the State and upheld the sessions court verdict which had acquitted the accused of all charges.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who stated that she came into contact with the first accused through a matrimonial website in March 2020. They remained in contact for around three months. According to her, during the lockdown period in May 2020, the accused took her to his house on the eve of Ramzan and she stayed there for four days, during which physical relations took place. She later alleged that this was done on the false promise of marriage.
After the accused stopped responding to her calls, she filed a criminal complaint, leading to registration of offences under Sections 354, 376, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court, after examining all witnesses and documents, acquitted the accused in December 2023.
The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, especially the medical report which showed that the hymen was ruptured. The prosecution claimed this supported the allegation of sexual assault.
However, the High Court carefully examined the entire record and found multiple serious inconsistencies in the complainant’s version. The Court noted that the complainant herself admitted she was active on social media during the alleged period of confinement, which weakened her claim that she was under constant threat and fear.
The Court also relied heavily on the complainant’s own written complaints. In her earlier complaint to the police, she had clearly stated that she was not willing to marry the accused as she did not trust him. In another complaint, she only requested the police to call the accused and advise him. These documents created serious doubt about the allegation that the relationship was based on a promise of marriage.
Medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s case. The doctor did not find any external or internal injuries on the complainant, including on her private parts. Except for noting that the hymen was ruptured, there were no signs of force or violence. The Court held that this medical evidence did not support the claim of forcible sexual assault.
The High Court further noted contradictions regarding the place of the alleged incident. While the complainant claimed the incident happened at one location, prosecution witnesses stated that the accused was living at a different place altogether. Even the neighbour produced by the prosecution failed to support the case.
Importantly, the Court observed that even if the complainant’s statement about staying together for four days is accepted, it did not show that the physical relationship was forced. The complainant never specifically stated that she was subjected to forcible rape. On this point, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment which held that:
“Consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being any misconception created by the accused does not constitute rape”.
The High Court also took note of the delay in filing the complaint and relied on another Supreme Court ruling which stated that
“The delay in lodging the complaint affected the credibility of the prosecution story”.
The judges emphasised that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle personal scores after relationships fail. When a woman is an adult, capable of making her own choices, and willingly enters into a relationship, the same cannot later be projected as rape unless clear evidence of force, deception, or coercion is shown.
After analysing all material on record, the High Court concluded that there was no perversity or legal error in the trial court’s judgment. The acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no grounds were made out to interfere with it.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the legal position that consensual relationships, even if they end badly, cannot automatically attract serious criminal charges.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose (In Simple Words) | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| IPC Section 354 | Outraging the modesty of a woman | Alleged by complainant, but no convincing evidence of force or assault was proved |
| IPC Section 376 | Punishment for rape | Court held the relationship appeared consensual; no proof of forcible intercourse |
| IPC Section 420 | Cheating | Allegation of false promise of marriage failed as complainant herself stated she did not trust or want to marry the accused |
| IPC Section 504 | Intentional insult | Not proved due to lack of reliable supporting evidence |
| IPC Section 506 | Criminal intimidation | Threat allegation disbelieved due to contradictions and conduct of complainant |
| IPC Section 34 | Common intention | Not applicable once main offences themselves were not proved |
| CrPC Section 378(1) & (3) | Appeal against acquittal | State’s appeal dismissed; no grounds to interfere with acquittal |
| Supreme Court precedent | Interpretation of consent | Relied upon to hold that consensual sex without deception is not rape |
Case Details
- Case Title: State by Kengeri Police Station vs. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe & Anr.
- Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2025
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
- Date of Judgment: 09 January 2026
- Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:1281-DB
- Counsels
- For Appellant (State): Sri Vijayakumar Majage, SPP-II
- For Respondents (Accused): Sri Shaikh Saoud, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A consensual adult relationship cannot be converted into a rape case merely because the relationship later failed.
- A false promise of marriage is not proved when the woman herself admits she did not trust or want to marry the man.
- Delay, contradictions, and inconsistent conduct seriously weaken the credibility of serious criminal allegations.
- Medical findings like a ruptured hymen, without injuries or proof of force, do not automatically establish rape.
- This judgment reinforces that men cannot be punished on assumptions, emotions, or hindsight, and criminal law must protect the innocent from misuse.
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.