A ‘consent’ given under fear of injury is not a ‘consent’ in the eyes of law. We are not persuaded to accept the solitary statement, at the time of the first alleged offence, ‘consent’ was obtained under fear of injury.

A ‘consent’ given under a misconception of fact is no ‘consent’ in the eyes of law. But, the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence. It hardly needs any elaboration, the ‘consent’ was a conscious and informed choice made after due deliberation. It was spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious, positive action not to protest.

There was no false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of the physical relationship.

– Hon’ble Justice Navin Sinha, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, [Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020].  

_____

A woman may have reasons other than a promise of marriage. In situations where a physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly, it cannot be said with certainty, said physical relationship was purely because of an alleged promise to marry.

In present case, it is more of an extra-marital affair without any insistence for getting married. In our opinion, long duration of a physical relationship would be indicative of a consensual relationship. Further, discontinuance of financial support appears to be the triggering point after a long consensual relationship for about 9 years. In our view, if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationships at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which Court must be mindful.

– Hon’ble Justice N.K. Singh, Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4326 of 2018] decided on 26.11.2024.

_____

Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197 held, when a woman who willingly engages in a long-term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show such relationship was induced by misconception of fact or a false promise of marriage made in bad faith from inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape.

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025] decided on 24.11.2025.