Courts Cannot Pass Moral Judgments on Adults’ Choices

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court decided Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer (2026). The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court, and discharged the appellant from the charges of rape on a false promise of marriage, cheating and bigamy.

What was the Background of Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer (2026) Case? 

• The complainant had a relationship with the appellant, and the two later married. 
• She alleged that before the marriage he had hidden his existing marriage and presented himself as a bachelor. 
• On her complaint, criminal proceedings were started against him for:  
  • rape on a false promise of marriage under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), 
  • cheating, and 
  • bigamy. 
• The record showed that:  
  • she found out within six months that he was already married and had children, and 
  • she still continued to live with him for seven years. 
• The Trial Court and the Kerala High Court did not discharge the appellant. 
• The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• When a woman knowingly continues a relationship with a man after learning that he is already married, can her consent be treated as vitiated, so that he can be prosecuted for rape, cheating and bigamy once the relationship ends?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On free choice and moral judgment: 

• The Court said it has not been given the role of passing moral judgments on how adults exercise their free choice, autonomy and agency. 
• Adults may make choices that are wise or unwise, prudent or reckless. Those choices may have painful or unwanted consequences. 
• That alone does not turn the choices into criminal offences that call for action by the State. 
• Criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal scores, take revenge or force someone to act in a particular way. 

On the complainant’s conduct: 

• The complainant learnt within six months that the appellant was married and had children, yet she lived with him for seven years. 
• This conduct weakened her claim that she believed she was his lawfully wedded wife. 
• The material on record did not show that she kept believing she was his legally wedded wife, or that the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out. 

On consensual relationships and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC: 

• The Court found that the relationship and the sexual acts were consensual. The appellant had simply decided to withdraw from the relationship. 
• Rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC cannot be inferred from that. 
• A relationship turning sour and bitter cannot, looking back, turn earlier consensual sexual acts into rape. 

On the trend of criminalising failed relationships: 

• The Court was concerned about a growing trend of turning failed consensual relationships into criminal cases. 
• It noted that the trend continues despite courts disapproving of it, and that settlements in such cases often involve large sums of money paid by the male accused. 

On genuine cases and vitiated consent: 

• The Court made clear that its observations do not reduce the seriousness of genuine allegations of rape and sexual assault. Rape remains heavily under-reported, and genuine cases must be pursued firmly. 
• It recognised that in India, where marriage carries great social value, a woman may agree to physical intimacy believing the relationship will lead to, or is based on, a lawful marriage. Her consent then depends on that belief being true. 
• If a woman was genuinely kept completely unaware that her partner was already married, her consent may be vitiated. Otherwise, the protection of Section 376 and Sections 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC would mean nothing for women who are truly wronged. 
• However, this principle must be applied on the facts and evidence of each case, not on mere allegations or moral assumptions. 

Decision: 

• The appeals were allowed. 
• The orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court were set aside. 
• The appellant was discharged from all the offences alleged against him.

What is Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides the punishment for rape. 
• Section 64(1): Whoever commits rape is punished with rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and is also liable to a fine. 
• Section 64(2): This sub-section lists aggravated forms of rape, which carry rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment (meaning the rest of the person’s natural life), along with a fine. 
• Section 64(2)(m): This clause covers a person who commits rape repeatedly on the same woman. 

Key Features: 

• Consent is central: Rape is defined in Section 63 of the BNS. Sexual acts done with a woman’s free and voluntary consent do not amount to rape. 
• Misconception of fact: Under Section 28 of the BNS, consent is not valid if it is given under a misconception of fact and the accused knows, or has reason to believe, that it was given because of that misconception. 
• New offence of deceitful means: Section 69 of the BNS separately punishes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made with no intention of keeping it, where the act does not amount to rape. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. “Deceitful means” includes marrying after hiding one’s identity. 
• Breach of promise is not always rape: A relationship that is consensual and later breaks down does not make the earlier consensual acts rape. 

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 

• Section 64 of the BNS corresponds to Section 376 of the IPC. 
• Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS corresponds to Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which dealt with rape committed repeatedly on the same woman. 
• Section 28 of the BNS corresponds to Section 90 of the IPC. 
• In the present case, the Supreme Court applied Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and held that its ingredients were not made out because the relationship was consensual.

What are Sections 81 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Sections 81 and 82 of the BNS appear in the chapter on offences relating to marriage. 
• Section 81: This section punishes a man who by deceit makes a woman who is not lawfully married to him believe that she is, and makes her live with him or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 
• Section 82(1): This section punishes a person who, while their husband or wife is alive, marries again in circumstances where that marriage is void because the spouse is alive. The punishment can extend to seven years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 
• Section 82(2): This section punishes the same offence more severely where the person hides the former marriage from the person they marry next. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 

Key Features: 

• Deceit is the core of Section 81: The offence requires that the woman was actually deceived into believing she was lawfully married. 
• Exceptions to bigamy: Section 82 does not apply where:  
  • a competent court has declared the earlier marriage void, or 
  • the earlier spouse has been continuously absent for seven years and has not been heard of as alive, provided this is disclosed to the person being married. 
• Concealment aggravates the offence: Hiding a former marriage from the new spouse attracts higher punishment under Section 82(2).