SUPREME COURT'S 'SIXTH SENSE' LEADS TO MARRIAGE, OVERTURNS RAPE CONVICTION ON FALSE PROMISE:

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court of India overturned a man's conviction for rape based on allegations of a false promise of marriage, after the couple reconciled and wed during the appeal process. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma exercised the court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, thereby quashing the FIR, the trial court's conviction, and the imposed sentence.

The case originated from the man's appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to deny suspension of his sentence. Upon reviewing the facts during initial hearings, the bench developed an intuitive sense that reconciliation was possible if the parties chose to marry. Acting on this instinct, the court directed counsel to obtain instructions from both sides. The appellant and the prosecutrix were then brought before the judges, who interacted with them privately in chambers alongside their parents. Both individuals expressed a desire to tie the knot, leading the court to grant interim bail to the man. The marriage was solemnised on July 22, 2025, and the couple has been living together harmoniously since then. The bench described this as a rare instance where its direct intervention transformed the outcome, ultimately benefiting the appellant by clearing his record, while noting that the parents of both parties were pleased with the resolution.

The underlying dispute traced back to 2015, when the man and woman connected via a social media platform and entered into a romantic relationship that became physical. The woman claimed her consent stemmed from the man's assurances of marriage. However, when the wedding was delayed beyond expectations, she filed an FIR in November 2021, accusing him of repeated rape under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. A trial court convicted him in 2024, imposing ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape charge and an additional term for cheating. His appeals progressed through the High Court before reaching the Supreme Court.

In the final ruling, the bench concluded that the matter involved a consensual relationship that had unfortunately acquired a criminal dimension due to a misunderstanding. The judges reasoned that both parties had genuinely intended to marry, and the complaint likely arose from the woman's feelings of insecurity when the man requested a postponement of the wedding plans. Given the subsequent marriage, the couple's cohabitation, and the woman's clear indication that she no longer wished to continue the criminal proceedings, the court deemed it appropriate to set aside all related legal actions. This rendered the pending High Court appeal moot.

Additionally, recognising the impact on the man's employment, he had been suspended from his government position—the bench instructed Madhya Pradesh authorities to immediately lift the suspension, reinstate him fully, and release any pending salary arrears within two months, especially since he had already resumed duties under prior interim relief. This decision highlights the Supreme Court's occasional use of broad constitutional powers to prioritise reconciliation and practical justice in personal disputes that escalate into serious criminal allegations, particularly when subsequent developments indicate mutual resolution.