Summary
On 30 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan quashed rape and cheating proceedings against a Kerala man, Santosh Kumar N.P. The complainant had lived with him from 1996 to 2003 and alleged she agreed to intimacy believing he was unmarried.
The court found that she learned of his existing marriage from his brother within a few months yet continued the relationship. It held that intimacy in a functioning consensual relationship cannot be branded rape merely because the relationship soured.
The ruling sharpens the distinction, now written into BNS Section 69, between consent obtained by deceit and consent later regretted.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
In Santosh Kumar N.P. v. State of Kerala, decided on 30 October 2026, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Kerala High Court's refusal to quash proceedings. It held that the ingredients of the offences charged under IPC Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 were entirely absent from the FIR and chargesheet.
The judgment cautions against converting failed relationships into criminal prosecutions and comes as courts begin applying the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's separate offence for sexual intercourse by deceitful means.
Standard News
The Moment That Decides the Crime: Consent Is Judged at the Start, Not the End Under the
old Indian Penal Code, a false promise of marriage became rape through a two-step reading. Section 375 defined rape as intercourse without consent. Section 90 said consent given under a "misconception of fact" is not consent at all.
Read together, a lie that induced consent could turn intimacy into rape. The Supreme Court's 30 October ruling in Santosh Kumar N.P. v. State of Kerala shows that the decisive question is not whether there was a lie, but when it worked on the woman's decision.
The inception test, applied to seven years The courts first drew this line in Deepak Gulati (2013), separating a promise later broken from a promise that was false when made.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) turned it into a test: the promise must be false from the very beginning and it must have directly shaped the decision to consent. The Kerala facts test that logic at its edge. The complainant said she agreed to the relationship believing the man was a bachelor, when he was already married with two children.
On her own account, though, she learned the truth from his brother within a few months - and the relationship continued until 2003. That is the key point. Whatever deception existed at the start was exposed early. From that moment, her continued consent was given with knowledge, not under a misconception.
The court found it hard to believe she still thought herself his lawful wife and held that the ingredients of the offences charged were absent from the FIR and chargesheet. Judged as a whole, the relationship was consensual and its unhappy ending could not reach back and rewrite seven years.
What the
BNS changes The law has now caught up with this case law. Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 makes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means - including a false promise of marriage - a separate offence, punishable with up to ten years. It is no longer squeezed into the definition of rape. Rape itself sits in Sections 63 and 64. The result is a clear three-way division:
- No consent or consent obtained by force or coercion: rape.
- Consent obtained by deceit at the start: Section 69, a serious but distinct offence.
- Consent freely given, later regretted: no crime at all.
The risk on the other side The court itself guarded against overcorrection.
It noted that many genuine rape cases never come to light and said they must be pursued with vigour. That echoes State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), which held that a survivor's testimony deserves the weight given to an injured witness. The danger is not the doctrine but its misreading. If police and trial courts treat every relationship complaint with suspicion, women deceived at the outset may stay silent.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, who wrote the judgment and R. Mahadevan.
-
Case: Santosh Kumar N.P. v. State of Kerala, decided on 30 October 2026.
-
The complainant and the appellant lived together from 1996 to 2003.
-
Section 375 of the IPC defined rape; Section 376 prescribed its punishment.
-
Section 90 of the IPC said consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid consent.
-
Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 makes sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, a separate offence punishable with up to 10 years.
-
Rape is defined and punished under Sections 63 and 64 of the BNS.
-
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) distinguished a breach of promise from a deliberately false promise.
-
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) held that a promise must be false from the start and must directly bear on the decision, to vitiate consent.
-
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) held that a rape survivor's testimony carries the weight of an injured witness's testimony.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
How Section 375 read with Section 90 of the IPC turned false promises into rape and why BNS Section 69 breaks that link
Why early discovery of a deception matters more than the deception itself, applied to the seven-year Kerala relationship
The chilling-effect risk for genuine complainants, set against Gurmit Singh's standard for survivor testimony
A three-tier test for courts and police: coercion, deceit at inception and later regret
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free