LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2021 INSC 134Decided 1 Mar 2021
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

The complainant alleged that she had a relationship with the appellant for about one and a half years, during which he assured her he would marry her, and that a physical relationship developed over this period with the knowledge of his family. When the appellant later refused to go through with the marriage, she lodged an FIR alleging rape under Section 376 IPC. The Allahabad High Court declined to quash the charge sheet, leaving it to the trial court to decide the matter after evidence. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the FIR itself showed a consensual relationship with no false promise of marriage from the outset.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court, applying the test laid down in its own precedent Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, held that consent is vitiated by a "misconception of fact" only where the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning, made in bad faith with no real intention of ever honouring it. A mere subsequent breach of promise or change of mind is not the same as a false promise. Reading the FIR and the complainant's own Section 164 CrPC statement, the Court found she had described the relationship as consensual and that the appellant's family was initially willing to proceed with marriage, with the refusal coming only later. Since there was no allegation that the promise was false at its inception, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out even taking the FIR's allegations at face value. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed both the charge sheet and the trial court's cognizance order, and the appellant's counsel also agreed to drop a related cross-FIR against the complainant.

Lesson Learnt

A rape charge based on an alleged "false promise of marriage" requires proof that the promise was false and made in bad faith right from the start; a relationship that turns consensual and later ends in a broken engagement, without evidence of deceit at the outset, does not by itself amount to rape under the law.

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