⚖️ Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) – Consent & Promise of Marriage
Case: Supreme Court of India | 20 May, 2013
Issue: Validity of consent obtained through a promise of marriage under Section 375 IPC.
📌 Key Facts of the Case
- The prosecutrix was 19 years old at the time of the incident.
- She willingly went with the appellant to Kurukshetra to get married.
- The appellant repeatedly assured her that he would marry her.
- The physical relationship was developed with her consent — she neither resisted nor complained while staying with him.
- She also accompanied him to Ambala with the intention of marriage.
⚖️ Court’s Observations
On Consent & Misconception of Fact
The Court reiterated the principle from Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003):
- If the promise is not false at inception and the accused genuinely intended to marry, it is not rape.
- Consent obtained under a false promise made solely to satisfy lust amounts to rape.
- There is a crucial distinction between a mere breach of promise and a false promise from inception.
On the Nature of Rape
The Court described rape as one of the most heinous crimes:
“Rape is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim… It causes indelible psychological and physical harm, violating human rights.”
On Section 90 IPC
The Court cited Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005):
- Section 90 requires analysis from both the victim’s and the accused’s perspective.
- The Court must be assured that from the very beginning, the accused never intended to marry her for the consent to be invalid.
📝 Case Analysis
- The prosecutrix was mature, intelligent, and aware of possible social obstacles (like caste).
- No conclusive evidence showed that the accused never intended to marry her.
- She voluntarily left home, stayed with him, and engaged in sexual relations repeatedly without complaint.
- The relationship appeared consensual and not based on a false promise.
✅ Verdict
The Court held that the allegation of “false promise of marriage” could not be sustained.
The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and his appeal succeeded.
He had already served more than 3 years of sentence.
❓ FAQs on Consent & Promise of Marriage
The key issue was whether consent obtained by the accused through a promise of marriage amounted to “consent” under Section 375 IPC, or whether it constituted rape.
The Court found no evidence to show that the accused never intended to marry the prosecutrix from the very beginning. Since the relationship appeared consensual, he was entitled to benefit of doubt.
A false promise is made with mala fide intention at the start, only to seduce the woman into sexual relations.
A breach of promise happens when genuine intent exists initially, but circumstances later prevent marriage. The former may amount to rape, the latter does not.
Section 90 IPC clarifies that consent is not valid if obtained under misconception of fact. The Court must also be satisfied that the accused knew, or should have known, that the woman’s consent was based on such misconception.
The Court described rape as one of the most reprehensible crimes, calling it an assault on body, mind, and dignity. It stated that rape leaves indelible scars on the victim’s life and is a crime against society at large.
The case shows that not every broken promise of marriage amounts to rape. Courts must carefully examine whether the promise was false from the beginning, or whether circumstances later made marriage impossible.
📘 Free Study Material for Judiciary Aspirants!
Download our FREE study material prepared by Delhi Law Academy’s expert faculty.
Contact us
📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033
📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606
✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com