Promise to marry is something which is defined as a contract which is mutually entered by a man and woman who are capable of contracting matrimonial and to get married after a certain period keeping in mind their caste, religion, and all other difficulties which they might face while carrying this wedlock decision forward. In the greater part of ‘promise to marry’ cases, the casualty is bamboozled into having intercourse with the accused, because of a contemptible or deceptive guarantee of marriage. Later on, the meaning of assent was brought into Section 375 under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013.
‘Real Rape’ in Context of Promise to Marry Cases
The complete populace of preliminary court decisions in Delhi over a time of long term was concentrated on which was around 273 cases which were enrolled as assault and rape cases. This incorporated all cases from 2014 to 2016. These decisions were gotten to through the guide of a Delhi High Court judge associated with the digitization of preliminary court decisions. 79 (28.9%) were guaranteed promise to marry cases out of the 273 cases in the information sheet. Of these, just one brought about a conviction (1.3%).
In the leftover 28 cases (34.2% of the guarantee promise to marry cases), the judgment was propelled by a stereotypical story of what a ‘genuine’ guarantee promises to marry case should resemble. This situation is additionally one of the reasons that today females are not completely sure when they are giving their assent because regardless of whether they herself needs to be engaged with sex such disturbing circumstance may fear them someplace and their goal in some cases got mistakes for the term assent.
The Promise of marrying can be breached in two ways:
- Breach of promise:
Breach of promise in the words of law can be seen as how the person initially had the intention to get married but later they are largely affected by dominated cultural ideas which in further regard an intra-caste, intra-communal marriage or family not agreeing upon the marriage, so due to these reasons now their initial plan of getting married cannot be taken forward which means the breach of a promise which was made in good faith now subsequently cannot be fulfilled. In the case of Deelip Singh v. the State of Bihar, the culprit was vindicated since the Court found that he had planned to marry the person in question, in any case, couldn’t marry her due to the strain applied by his family elderly folks on him not to get married on account of the position contrasts.
- False promise:
False promise in the words of law can be stated as that when it appears that the expectation of the accused right from the starting was not legit yet at the same time he continued to guarantee that he will marry the young lady but later after developing physical relation he refuses her. This kind of consent obtained by the accused on a falsely promises for his satisfaction of desire can’t be supposed to be any assent because, in this, the young lady was under an impression of misinterpretation of truth that the accused means to marry her, thusly, she had submitted to sex with him.
Hence in a case like this, the person will be charged for rape under “Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code clause ‘secondly’ which defines rape like many other sexual assault statutes: it specifies gender, rape is a man’s “sexual intercourse” with a woman “without her consent”. Following with IPC u/s 375, the person would even be liable under section 90 of IPC which is about the consent when obtained under the misconception of facts. The sort of assent taken by the accused with the clear expectation not to satisfy the guarantee and convinced the casualty to accept that he will marry her and acquired her assent for the sex under absolute misguided judgment can’t be treated as an assent under section 90 of IPC.
The components which can be set out in the initial segment of Section 90 are according to the casualty’s perspective while the subsequent part authorizes the relating arrangement according to the accused point of see. There is a sensible separation between rape and consensual sex and in cases, the court should be mindfully inspecting whether the accused person is needed to marry the person or just had malafide intentions or considerations by making bogus guarantees with this effect on fulfilling his desire just, as the last fall inside the ambit of cheating.
The situation becomes worse sometimes that it demolishes the rights of women and their dignity sometimes because since Section 375 and 376 of IPC are non-bailable so the victim who never had positive intention to marry the girl whom he has raped, just for the sake to protect himself from getting a charge of Rape asks or convinces the girl or family members that he will marry her. In such a situation, the female does not have any option left to save her character and hence, therefore, has to marry a rapist which is totally against her desire.
In the case of Anurag Soni v. the State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that from current realities of the cases the goal of the denounced, directly from the start was not genuine and he continued to guarantee that he will marry her, till she became pregnant. This kind of assent got by the charge can’t be supposed to be any consent since she was under a misguided judgment of truth that the blamed means to marry her, thusly appropriately, she had submitted to sex with him and accordingly he is obligated for assault.
Accordingly, he ought to likewise not be pardoned from assault charges since Rape is the most ethically and truly indefensible wrongdoing in a general public, an attack on the body, brain, and security of the person. Where a killer annihilates the actual chasing or pursuing of the harmed individual yet an attacker debases and defiles the spirit of a female. Assault or Rape does not simply shake the actual centre of a female life however it is moreover equivalent to a genuine hit to the exceptional regard of a lady and insults both her regard and respect.
The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lalalso held that Submission of the body under the dread of fear can’t be understood as an assented sexual demonstration. In the State of U.P. v. Naushad, the Hon’ble Supreme Court turned around the vindication by the High Court and sentenced the denounced for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC having sex by giving bogus confirmation to marry the woman and from that point declining to enter the wedlock is apparent that he never planned to marry her and secured her consent just for the explanation of having sexual relations with her, which demonstration of the blamed falls unequivocally under the definition for assault as he had sex with her assent which is further can be called as the assent acquired under a misguided judgment of truth as characterized under Section 90 of Indian Penal Code and such an assent will not pardon the blamed from the charge for Rape and offence under section 375 of IPC.
Consent and Submission: Two different Roads
There is a difference between consent and submission which upon being cleared will give us a clearer presentation of our arguments as Submission of her body affected by dread or fear is not to consider as an assent. Since each assent includes an accommodation however the opposite doesn’t follow, and a simple demonstration of submission doesn’t include her freedom of thought or assent. Assent of the young lady to assuage a demonstration, of a criminal person, similar to assault is a demonstration of reason after the brain has wished as in equilibrium, the great and evil on each side, with the current limit and ability to pull out the consent as per one’s will or joy. A lady is said just when she has given her assent just when she uninhibitedly consents to submit herself, while in free and unconstrained ownership of her physical and great control to act in a way she needed.
As the present circumstance is an instance of inactive submission on the desire of mental strain which is applied and the allurements made by the blamed person which brought about implied assent given by the prosecutrix because of a misguided judgment made in her brain concerning the aim of the charged to wed her. Thus, the denounced ought to be rebuffed for section 375 of IPC for a charge of assault on a bogus guarantee to marry as Rape in itself is accursed and shocking and it declines and becomes cruel and boorish when the convict supposedly guarantees to marry the prosecutrix has violated the person and soul by having a physical relationship and then refused to marry her.
Author(s) Name: Kajal Tanwar (OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat)
 Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88.
 Independent Thought v. Union of India, 2018 CriLJ 3541.
 Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC Online SC 509.
 State Of U.P v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550.
 Arjan Ram Naurata Ram v. the State, AIR 1960 P&H 303.