Karnataka High Court- False Promise of Marriage Cannot Be Treated as Consent

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.10.2026

Karnataka High Court- False Promise of Marriage Cannot Be Treated as Consent

The Karnataka High Court has overturned a trial court’s acquittal and convicted an accused of rape, cheating and criminal intimidation, holding that a sexual relationship induced by a false promise of marriage cannot be treated as consensual merely because the parties were in a relationship.

The case at a glance

In Manjula v. Devaraju and State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 2047 of 2018), a Division Bench of Justices H.P. Sandesh and B. Pramod set aside the 2018 acquittal issued by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. The High Court found that the trial court had failed to properly assess the complainant’s testimony, her original complaint, the DNA evidence, and allegations of threats.

The accused was convicted under:

• Section 417 IPC for cheating;
• Section 376 IPC for rape; and
• Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape, along with prison terms and fines for the other offences. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Allegations and evidence before the Court

The complainant stated that she and the accused had known each other since their school days and were in a relationship. According to her complaint and testimony, the accused repeatedly assured her that he would marry her, told her he would not marry anyone else, and continued sexual relations on the strength of that assurance.

She alleged that after she became pregnant, the accused asked her to terminate the pregnancy. When she refused and pressed him to marry her, he allegedly refused and threatened her life. The complaint also referred to an earlier case and alleged that the accused had pressured her to withdraw it by continuing to promise marriage.

The High Court placed particular weight on a DNA report establishing that the accused was the biological father of the complainant’s daughter. The judgment notes that the accused did not effectively challenge the DNA evidence. Medical and investigative evidence, including the pregnancy finding and potency report, was also before the trial court.

Why the High Court rejected the acquittal

The trial court had treated the case as one involving consensual sexual relations, largely because the complainant acknowledged a love affair and prior physical relationship with the accused. The High Court held that this approach was incomplete and legally flawed.

The Court emphasized that the central issue was not simply whether the parties were in a relationship, but whether the complainant’s consent had been obtained through a promise of marriage that induced her to engage in sexual relations. It found that the trial court had not meaningfully considered:

• the specific allegations in the original complaint;
• the complainant’s testimony that the accused repeatedly promised marriage;
• the allegation that he continued the relationship while asking her to withdraw an earlier complaint;
• the DNA evidence confirming paternity; and
• the accusation that he threatened her after she became pregnant and refused an abortion.

According to the High Court, the absence of physical injuries did not undermine the prosecution case. Where consent is obtained on the basis of a promise of marriage, the Court reasoned, physical injuries are not an expected indicator of the offence. It held that a continuing sexual relationship based on such a promise could not automatically be categorised as consensual sex.

Appellate court’s finding: material evidence was overlooked

The High Court described the trial court’s assessment as perverse because it did not properly evaluate key oral and documentary evidence. It found that the acquittal had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Bench also noted that the trial court had not adequately addressed the elements of cheating under Section 417 or criminal intimidation under Section 506. The complaint and the complainant’s evidence contained specific allegations of deception and threats, but these were not substantively analysed in the acquittal judgment.

Relying on Supreme Court principles concerning appellate interference with acquittals, the High Court held that an appellate court may reverse an acquittal where cogent evidence has not been properly appreciated and the result is a miscarriage of justice.

Sentence and compensation directions

After conviction, the Court imposed the following sentence:

• Section 417 IPC: One year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
• Section 376 IPC: Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000.
• Section 506 IPC: Two years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

The total fine is Rs. 7,00,000. If deposited, Rs. 5,00,000 is to be kept in a fixed deposit in the daughter’s name until she reaches adulthood. The remaining Rs. 2,00,000 is to be released to the complainant for her livelihood and for the child’s educational needs.

The Court also directed the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, to award maximum compensation to the complainant and her child within four months. It noted that the trial court had failed to consider victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even while the complainant and child were facing hardship.

Maintenance order also noted

During the appeal, the Court was informed that a maintenance order had directed the accused to pay Rs. 2,000 each per month to the complainant and her daughter. The complainant’s side stated that this amount had not been paid, and the accused did not dispute that assertion. The High Court considered this conduct while determining sentence and compensation.

Broader legal significance

The ruling underscores that the existence of a romantic relationship does not, by itself, resolve the question of consent in a criminal case. Courts must closely examine whether consent was given freely or was induced by deception, particularly where a complainant alleges that sexual relations occurred because of a promise of marriage.

It also highlights the duty of trial courts to assess all material evidence, including the complaint, testimony, scientific evidence, and allegations of intimidation, rather than limiting their analysis to whether there was force or physical injury. The judgment further reinforces the importance of victim-compensation mechanisms, including in cases where a trial court initially records an acquittal.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com