The Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 3, 2025, dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape, holding that a promise to marry an already married woman does not constitute a “misconception of fact” under the law. A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the physical relationship was consensual as the prosecutrix was aware that a legal marriage was not possible without a divorce from her existing husband.
The appeal was filed by the prosecutrix, referred to as “Victim X,” against the judgment dated November 26, 2024, by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. The trial court had acquitted the respondent, Laxman Kahar, of charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(च) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an FIR lodged on May 1, 2023. The prosecutrix alleged that the respondent, Laxman Kahar, had been in a physical relationship with her for four years on the pretext of marriage. She stated that on March 16, 2023, he took her to his house and again committed rape. When she pressured him to marry her, he claimed his family was against the proposal. According to the FIR, she had attempted to file a report on March 17, 2023, but delayed it for one and a half months because the respondent had initially offered to compromise.
The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading the prosecutrix to file the present appeal before the High Court, seeking his conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant, Shri Avinash Gupta, argued that the evidence of the victim (PW-1) and her brothers (PW-2 and PW-4) was reliable and sufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It was contended that the respondent had committed the offence under a false promise of marriage. The appellant’s counsel cited Supreme Court judgments in Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana and State of U.P. Vs. Naushad to argue that consent obtained under a misconception of fact is not valid consent and amounts to rape.
Shri Arvind Singh, Government Advocate for the State, and Shri Mukul Singh, counsel for the respondent, supported the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, meticulously examined the evidence on record. The prosecutrix (PW-1) testified that she was 35 years old, had been married for nineteen years, and had three sons. Her husband had left her about ten years prior. She admitted that the respondent, who was related to her brother’s in-laws, had been in a relationship with her for four years on the pretext of marriage.
Crucially, in her cross-examination, she admitted that divorce proceedings with her husband had been initiated and a maintenance case was pending, but her marriage had not been legally dissolved. She stated, “it is true that since she has not been divorced from her husband, therefore, respondent no. 2 could not marry her.”
The court noted the testimony of the prosecutrix’s brothers. PW-2 stated that while he knew the respondent made illicit relations on the pretext of marriage, he personally did not know the nature of their relationship. PW-4, who was declared hostile, mentioned that his sister wanted to marry the respondent because her husband had left her.
The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr. Rashmi Rai (PW-5), who examined the prosecutrix, testified that there were no external or internal injuries on her body and that her hymen was old and torn. Dr. Rai stated in cross-examination that based on the medical examination, no opinion regarding rape could be given.
The bench found a critical distinction between the present case and the precedents cited by the appellant. The court observed that in State of U.P. Vs. Naushad, the Supreme Court had found the accused guilty because he had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix from the beginning, thus vitiating her consent. However, in the case at hand, the High Court reasoned that there was a legal impediment to the marriage.
The judgment stated, “the prosecutrix and other witnesses have admitted that the prosecutrix was already married and had three children… There was no possibility that when the prosecutrix did not get divorced from her husband then the respondent no. 2 could marry her. Therefore, in this case there is no case of misconception/misrepresentation by the respondent no.2 to the prosecutrix.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes between a “mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise.” The High Court concluded that even if the respondent had promised marriage, it was not possible for him to fulfill it due to circumstances beyond his control, namely the prosecutrix’s existing marriage.
The Decision
The High Court held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that two views were possible based on the evidence, the one favouring the accused should be adopted, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh.
Finding no misreading of evidence or compelling reasons to interfere, the court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The bench concluded, “We after careful examination find that the trial court has not misread the evidence or left any evidence from its consideration. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the judgment of the trial court.”
