DELHI HC ON PROMISE TO MARRY AND SEXUAL RELATIONS DISHA GUPTA LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, Oct 11, 2019, at ,12:22 PM Case: State v. Sandeep, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10332, decided on 25-09-2019 The Delhi High Court held that a continuous intimate relationship that involves sexual activity over a significant period of time cannot be said to be induced by a promise to marry merely on the assertion that the other party had expressed their intention to get married. The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru while upholding the acquittal passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a rape case lodged by a woman to whom he had promised to marry. The High Court has observed that jilting a lover despite sexual relationship, however abhorrent it may seem, is not an offense. The Court added that it is the false inducement given with the intention to exploit the other party that would constitute an offense of rape under the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecutrix, P, she had developed a friendship with the accused in 2013 which soon transformed into a love affair. She stated that the accused proposed marriage to her within two months of meeting her. Thereafter, in 2016, the accused invited P to his house where he allegedly raped her despite her resistance. Later that year, the accused took her to a hotel and had allegedly raped her again. As per P, the accused then reneged on his promise and declined to marry her. Subsequently, P approached the police station alleging the commission of rape. Her statement was recorded by the police and she was medically examined. She, however, declined any internal medical examination. After perusing the material on record, the Court observed that the fact that the accused had established a physical relationship with P could not be disputed. The only question that had to be answered was whether P had consented to the physical relationship under a false promise of marriage, it said. The Court noted that P had “unequivocally accepted” in her cross-examination that she and the accused were in love with each other and wanted to get married and it was P’s family which was opposed to their marriage. It was also observed that there was inherent inconsistency in the testimony of P’s father. It said the woman appeared to have used the allegation of inducement of the physical relationship on the promise of marriage, to not only justify her physical relationship with the accused in the past, but also her conduct after the FIR was filed. Further Justice Bakhru said that in so far as consent to engage in a sexual act is concerned; the campaign 'no means no', that was initiated in the 1990s, embodies a universally accepted rule: a verbal 'no' is a definite indication of not giving consent to engage in a sexual act. "There is now wide acceptance to move ahead from the rule of 'no means no' to 'yes means yes'. Thus, unless there is an affirmative, conscious and voluntary consent to engage in sex; the same would constitute an offense, The Court thus concluded that it could not be accepted that P’s consent was obtained by inducing her on the pretext of a promise to marry. The Court also sought to distinguish the act of “not marrying” with the alleged act of rape and stated, “It is important to bear in mind that two consenting adults establishing a physical relationship, is not a crime. Jilting a lover, however, abhorrent that it may seem to some, is also not an offense punishable under the IPC.” In view of the above, this Court concluded that there was no infirmity with the decision and dismissed the leave to appeal.