SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI, 2025
The Courts must carefully evaluate evidence of mutual consent and deterioration of relationships before treating allegations as rape.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
30 October 2025
Judges
Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The accused, a 20-year-old man, was charged with raping his neighbor over two years under the pretext of a promise to marry her.
-
Allegations included inviting the complainant to hotels and maintaining a physical relationship multiple times.
-
The complainant alleged the accused repeatedly refused to marry, even after attending Tis Hazari Courts to perform the marriage.
-
Evidence included WhatsApp chats between the parties indicating mutual affection, voluntary participation, and messages where the complainant allegedly threatened self-harm.
Issues
-
Whether a breach of promise to marry constitutes a false promise of marriage for the purpose of criminal liability?
-
Whether the allegations of rape were coercive or non-consensual, given the evidence of mutual affection?
-
The scope of Article 21 personal liberty in bail considerations where allegations may be exaggerated or motivated by revenge?
Held
-
Bail granted to the accused.
-
Court held that the relationship appeared consensual, and allegations of rape were not prima facie coercive.
-
Observed that personal liberty under Article 21 must be protected when allegations seem exaggerated or motivated.
Analysis
-
Establishes that not every breach of promise to marry amounts to a false promise for criminal liability.
-
Courts must carefully evaluate evidence of mutual consent and deterioration of relationships before treating allegations as rape.
-
It Highlights the importance of balancing seriousness of allegations with protection of liberty when evidence suggests the possibility of exaggerated or motivated claims.