Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860

The State v. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe & Another, 2026

The judgment reiterates the distinction between breach of promise and false promise of marriage.

Karnataka High Court·30 January 2026
The State v. Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe & Another, 2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Karnataka High Court

Date of Decision

30 January 2026

Judges

Justice H.P. Sandesh & Justice Venkatesh Naik T

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The complainant came into contact with accused No.1 through Shaadi.com in March 2020.

  • They remained in contact for approximately three months.

  • It was alleged that on 22.05.2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown:

    • The accused took the complainant to his house.

    • She was allegedly confined there for four days.

    • During this period, the accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage.

  • The complainant alleged that on 28.05.2020, the accused dropped her near her house and thereafter:

    • Turned hostile

    • Stopped responding to her calls

    • Became untraceable

  • A criminal case was registered for offences including rape, cheating, assault, and criminal intimidation.

  • The Sessions Court acquitted the accused.

  • Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage?

  2. Whether sexual intercourse alleged in the facts of the case amounts to rape or consensual sexual relationship?

  3. Whether the complainant’s own statements expressing unwillingness to marry the accused negate the prosecution’s case of false promise of marriage?

  4. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court?

Held

  • Sexual intercourse arising out of a consensual relationship, without misconception of fact created by the accused, does not amount to rape.

  • When the complainant herself states that she was unwilling to marry the accused, the allegation of rape on false promise of marriage cannot be sustained.

  • No perversity or illegality was found in the trial court’s acquittal warranting interference.

  • The State’s appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

  • The judgment reiterates the distinction between breach of promise and false promise of marriage.

  • The Court emphasized that consent is vitiated only when obtained under misconception of fact, which must be clearly proved.

  • The complainant’s own admissions were decisive in discrediting the prosecution case.

  • The High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal, which require strong and compelling reasons for interference.

  • Medical evidence indicating sexual intercourse was held insufficient by itself to establish rape in the absence of lack of consent.

  • The ruling reinforces judicial caution against criminalising consensual relationships.