Samadhan Sitatram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1351 - Rape Cases -Promise Of Marriage

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 -Physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage -Failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation. (Para 28-29) The law must remain sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated, lest the protective scope of Section 376 of the IPC be reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved. At the same time, the invocation of this principle must rest upon credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral conjecture. (Para 31) 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. (Para 35)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376(2)(n) - The expression “repeatedly” employed in the provision is of significance. It contemplates more than one act of sexual assault, committed at different points in time on the same victim. Courts have consistently interpreted this phrase to mean a series of acts that are separate in nature and not a continuation of a single transaction- In genuine cases under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, the pattern is usually unmistakable; it is an initial act of sexual assault, followed by multiple acts under fear, pressure, captivity, or continued deceit, often when the woman is rendered vulnerable and unable to escape the situation. (Para 21-22)

Case Info


Case Details

  • Case name: Samadhan S/O Sitatram Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra & Another
  • Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1351
  • Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna; Justice R. Mahadevan
  • Judgment date: November 24, 2025
  • Appeal no.: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6906 of 2025)
  • Disposition: Appeal allowed; FIR No. 294/2024 and Chargesheet No. 143/2024 quashed

Caselaws and Citations

  • Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398
  • Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764
  • Rajnish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
  • Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675
  • Ganga Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 7 SCC 278

Statutes / Laws Referred

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 375376376(2)(n)507
  • BNSS, 2023 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita): Section 528 (successor to CrPC Section 482)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482 (referenced via Bhajan Lal parameters)
  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 19 (consent vitiation context)