LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 939Decided 21 Aug 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2019
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The complainant alleged that she and the appellant had an on-and-off relationship and sexual relationship spanning roughly 2004 to 2016, during which he repeatedly promised to marry her but ultimately married someone else, prompting her to file an FIR for rape (Section 376 IPC) and related offences, including under the SC/ST Act. The appellant sought to have the FIR quashed, arguing the relationship was long-term and consensual; the Bombay High Court declined to quash it.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court laid down a clear two-part legal test for when a "promise to marry" can vitiate consent and turn consensual sex into rape: (1) the promise must have been false from the very outset, given in bad faith with no real intention of being kept, and (2) it must have had a direct and immediate bearing on the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. Applying this to the facts, a six-year relationship where both parties knew from 2008 onward that caste-based family opposition could prevent the marriage, yet continued the relationship regardless, the Court found no evidence the promise was false from inception, so the "misconception of fact" needed to vitiate consent was absent. The FIR was quashed; the SC/ST Act charges also failed because the relevant provisions hadn't even been enacted when the alleged conduct occurred.

Lesson Learnt

Not every broken promise of marriage amounts to rape in the eyes of the law: criminal liability only arises if the promise was fraudulent from the very beginning and was the direct reason the woman agreed to the sexual relationship; a relationship that sours or a promise that is later not kept, despite having been made honestly, is not a crime.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case