Crl.A./166/2026 of MS GITA SAHANI Vs STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 12 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 13/05/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Dr. R. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A.

Begum, learned APP.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20/11/2025, passed by the Court of the learned Additional Session Judge, Jorhat, Assam, in Sessions (II) Case No. 49/2025, arising out of Titabor PS Case No.86/2024, by which the respondent male has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 376/417 IPC.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant and the respondent have known each other since they were in school and after they attained majority, they entered into a physical relationship. The physical relationship lasted for 9(nine) years. The appellant's counsel submits that the physical relationship for the last nine years was due to a promise made by the respondent to the appellant that he would marry her. However, the respondent subsequently informed the appellant that a marriage was arranged with a girl at Dergaon and the ring ceremony had been solemnized between the respondent and the appellant.

4. The Appellant's counsel submits that though a case of rape under Section 376 IPC is not made out against the respondent, the promise of marriage held out by the respondent to the appellant, shows that a case under Section 417 IPC has been made out. As such, the impugned judgment acquitting the appellant under Section 417 IPC needs to be set aside and the respondent should be convicted under Section 417 IPC.

5. The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that when it is the case of the appellant that no case of rape has been made out, the question of cheating the appellant by the respondent on the promise of marriage, cannot be said to be made out/proved.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. As can be seen from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant and her erstwhile boyfriend (respondent) had known each other since school and they had a physical relationship after they became adults, which lasted for 9 years. It is not the case of the appellant that there was any promise to marry made out by the respondent to the appellant when they were in school. Further, when no case of rape has been made out or alleged by the appellant, we are unable to hold that a case of cheating has been made out, just because the respondent had allegedly promised to marry the appellant.

8. In the case of Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2025) 5 SCC 764, the Supreme Court held that a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages, cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. In the case of Rajneesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 197, the Supreme Court held that when a woman who willingly engages in a long- term sexual relationship with a man, fully aware of its nature and without any cogent evidence to show that such relationship was induced by misconception of fact or false promise of marriage, made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 376 of the IPC.

9. In the present case, there is no denial by the appellant’s counsel that there was no promise of marriage made in bad faith, at the very inception of the relationship. It also does not appear so from the evidence given by the appellant. When the parties have been a consensual couple for the last 9 years and in view of the stand of the appellant that no case of rape is made out, we do not have any reason to hold that a case of rape under Section 376 IPC has been made out, which in turn cannot prove that a case under Section 417 IPC is made out. There being a consensual relationship between the parties, we hold that the present case appears to be a case of hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. For whatever reason, the attraction and love the respondent had for the appellant appears to have fizzled out. The going of one of the parties on a different path, after 9 years of consensual relationship, cannot be said to be a case of cheating.

10. We accordingly do not find any ground to interfere with the acquittal of the respondent by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant