Soured Relationship Is Not Rape: SC Discharges Accused Man

Soured Relationship Cannot Retrospectively Become Rape: Supreme Court Discharges Man Accused of Deceitful Marriage

Published: 30 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court has discharged a man accused of rape, cheating and marriage offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 IPC by a woman who lived with him for years after a temple ceremony. It held that she learnt of his earlier marriage within months yet stayed, so the case showed a consensual relationship, and that intimacy in a relationship that later soured cannot be recast as rape (paras 42-44, 61-64).

Key holdings

At discharge, the court asks whether the offence is probable on the material taken at face value; where it is non-existent, discharge is justified (paras 28-29, 35-36, 62).

Learning of the partner's earlier marriage within months and still cohabiting for years defeated the claim of consent obtained by deceit (paras 42, 53, 56).

Section 376(2)(n) addresses separate repeated assaults; acts within an ongoing consensual relationship cannot be severed from it to fit that clause (paras 37, 47-48).

Section 420 needs deceit inducing delivery of property or dealing with a valuable security; a deceived belief of marriage alone is not enough (paras 49-51).

A woman genuinely kept unaware of an earlier marriage remains protected by Sections 376 and 493-495 (para 59).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The complainant, earlier divorced, alleged that the appellant claimed to be a bachelor, married her at a temple and lived with her as a married couple for some years, during which she consented to sexual acts believing the marriage valid (para 3). Her domestic violence case was dismissed after he disclosed an earlier marriage with two children (para 4). A first private complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution; a second was sent to the police and an FIR followed (paras 5-7). The trial court refused discharge and further investigation, and on 21.05.2025 the Kerala High Court dismissed his revision and petition (paras 9-10).

Court's Findings

Applying the discharge test in Prafulla Kumar Samal and Sajjan Kumar, the Court asked whether the allegations, taken as they stand, made the offences probable, and found that probability "entirely non-existent" (paras 26-29, 35-36). On rape, the complainant did not deny that the appellant's brother told her of his earlier marriage within a few months, yet she stayed; her claimed belief that she was his lawful wife was untenable (paras 41-42, 53). Intimacy in a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded rape because it soured, and the repeated acts were part of that relationship, not separate assaults under Section 376(2)(n) (paras 37, 44, 47-48). Section 420 failed as no property was delivered and no valuable security made (paras 49-51). On Sections 493-495, her continued cohabitation after learning of the earlier marriage excluded any belief of lawful marriage, and the material did not prima facie show a valid marriage (paras 53-54, 56). The Court added that genuine cases must be pursued with vigour (para 46).

Legal Principle

Consent given in the belief of a valid marriage may be vitiated where the woman was genuinely kept entirely in the dark about the man's earlier marriage. Where she learnt of it early and continued the relationship, intimacy during it cannot later be treated as rape or as cohabitation induced by deceit (paras 42, 44, 53, 59).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For courts deciding discharge in cases built on a long relationship, the ruling asks them to view the relationship as a whole, not from its end (para 45), and to test whether the offence is probable on the material as it stands (paras 28-29). What the complainant knew, and when, is decisive: early knowledge of an earlier marriage followed by years together pointed to consent, not deceit (paras 42, 53). The Court kept the protection of Sections 376 and 493-495 for a woman genuinely kept in the dark (para 59). On consent under a misconception of fact, see also Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
Applied Discussed at ¶ 26, 62
At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC the judge may sift the evidence to see whether a prima facie case is made out; grave suspicion justifies a charge, but where two views are possible and the evidence raises some but not grave suspicion, the accused may be discharged. Applied to discharge the appellant.
Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368
Applied Discussed at ¶ 27, 62
Restates the Section 227 and 228 CrPC principles: the material taken at face value must disclose all the ingredients of the offence, and suspicion short of grave suspicion warrants discharge. Applied to discharge the appellant.