The Karnataka High Court has held that a sexual relationship continued on a promise of marriage cannot be called consensual, and set aside a 2018 trial court verdict that had acquitted a man of rape, cheating and criminal intimidation. A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod convicted the accused under Sections 417, 376 and 506 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for rape.
The Bench found that the trial court had ignored the promise of marriage, the victim’s complaint and a DNA report confirming the accused as the father of the victim’s child.
Background
The prosecution case was that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her, and kept up the relationship until July 2012. She became pregnant. When she told him, he asked her to terminate the pregnancy. When she refused and insisted on marriage, he refused to marry her and threatened her life.
The trial court, the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, acquitted the accused on October 3, 2018. It held that the two were in love and that the relationship was consensual. It also relied on the doctor’s evidence that there were no marks of forceful sex. The victim then appealed under Section 372 CrPC.
Arguments
Advocate Sampangi Ramaiah, appointed as amicus curiae for the victim, and High Court Government Pleader Suhas Gowda M., appearing for the State, argued that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused without considering the material on record.
Counsel for the accused contended that the trial court had rightly found the relationship consensual. He argued that neither Section 376 nor Section 417 IPC was attracted.
Court’s Findings
The Bench held that the trial court had not discussed the complaint or the victim’s evidence “in a proper perspective”. The victim had consistently said that the accused repeatedly promised over the phone to marry only her.
The Court observed: “Both of them are having an affair cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.”
On the absence of injuries, the Bench said: “the Court cannot expect any injuries on the private part of the victim when accused had promised to marry her and obtained the consent by making that promise and subjected her for sexual act.” It added: “The continuation of sexual intercourse by both of them with the promise of marriage, cannot be a consensual sex.”
The Court pointed out that the trial court had itself found, in paragraph 42 of its judgment, that the DNA report proved the accused was the child’s biological father. Even so, it had acquitted him without discussing the scope of Section 417 IPC. The Bench also found that the trial court had not discussed Section 506 IPC at all. This was despite the complaint alleging that the accused tried to take the victim’s life with a dupatta.
The Bench noted that the victim was about 19 when she filed the complaint. Her evidence was that the promise of marriage was made when she was a minor and they were studying in the same school. Relying on Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, and P. Yuvaprakash v. State (July 18, 2023), the Court held that an appellate court can convert an acquittal into a conviction where cogent evidence has not been appreciated. It found the trial court’s findings perverse.
Sentence
The Court recorded that the accused offered to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation “instead of taking the conviction and sentence”. It also recorded that he had refused the Court’s advice to marry the victim. He had not paid even the ₹2,000 monthly maintenance each that the trial court had ordered for the victim and the child under Section 125 CrPC.
The accused was sentenced as follows:
- Section 417 IPC: one year’s imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh
- Section 376 IPC: life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakh
- Section 506 IPC: two years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh
The sentences will run concurrently, and he was sent to Central Prison, Bengaluru.
Out of the ₹7 lakh in fines, ₹5 lakh will be kept in a fixed deposit in the child’s name until she turns 18. The remaining ₹2 lakh will go to the victim for her livelihood and the child’s education.
The Bench also faulted the trial court for not using its powers under Section 357A CrPC. It observed: “In the case of acquittal also, the victim is entitled for compensation since the victim has supported the case before the trial court.” The Tumakuru District Legal Services Authority was directed to pay maximum compensation to the victim and the child within four months. The Registry was directed to pay the amicus curiae a fee of ₹10,000.
Case Title: M v. D & Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2047 of 2018
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod
Date: October 17, 2026
