In an unusual turn where instinct met intervention, the Supreme Court set aside a rape conviction rooted in an alleged false promise of marriage—after the very relationship at the heart of the case culminated in an actual wedding.
The Court described the matter as one where a consensual relationship had been painted with criminal hues after it unraveled. Exercising its extraordinary powers to ensure “complete justice,” the Bench wiped out the FIR, conviction, and sentence, noting that the dispute no longer survived in light of subsequent events.
The case reached the Supreme Court after the accused challenged a High Court order that refused to suspend his sentence. At the first hearing, the judges sensed—by what they later termed a “sixth sense”—that the impasse between the two individuals could potentially be resolved if they were brought face to face. Acting on that intuition, the Court asked counsel to seek instructions from the parties.
Both individuals were then presented before the Court, where the judges interacted with them privately, in the presence of their parents. What followed was a rare judicial intervention: both parties expressed a clear willingness to marry. Interim bail was granted, and the marriage took place shortly thereafter. The couple has since been living together.
Reflecting on this outcome, the Court observed that the case stood out as one where its intervention ultimately benefitted the accused by undoing the conviction and sentence altogether, while also restoring harmony between the families involved.
How the dispute began
The relationship began years earlier through a social media interaction that gradually deepened. When the marriage did not materialise within the timeframe the woman expected, she approached the police, alleging that her consent to the relationship had been secured through a false assurance of marriage. This led to charges of rape and cheating.
A trial court later convicted the man, imposing a lengthy prison sentence. His appeal remained pending when the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Court: misunderstanding, not deception
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the facts pointed to a mutual intention to marry, derailed by delays and insecurity rather than deception. The judges noted that the complaint appeared to have been triggered when the proposed marriage was postponed, transforming a consensual relationship into a criminal allegation.
With the marriage now solemnised and the woman stating that she no longer wished to pursue the case, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose. All criminal proceedings were therefore quashed, and the pending appeal was rendered academic.
The Court also directed state authorities to restore the accused’s government service benefits, revoke his suspension, and release all pending salary dues within a fixed timeframe.
With that, the appeal was closed—marking a rare instance where a criminal case ended not with punishment, but with a wedding and judicial closure.
