Section 69 BNS

False Promise of Marriage Defence Lawyer

Section 69 BNS

False Promise of Marriage Defence Lawyer

Essential Ingredients of Section 69 BNS | Explained

Learn the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS, what the prosecution must prove, Supreme Court principles, burden of proof, and key legal requirements for conviction.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 creates a distinct statutory offence relating to sexual intercourse alleged to have been obtained through specified deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. Like every criminal offence, a conviction under Section 69 cannot be based merely on allegations or the failure of a relationship. The prosecution must establish each statutory ingredient through legally admissible evidence before a court can record a finding of guilt.

Understanding these ingredients is essential because they define the boundaries of the offence itself. They determine the scope of a police investigation, guide the framing of charges, influence decisions on discharge and quashing petitions, and ultimately form the basis on which courts assess criminal liability. If even one essential ingredient is not established, the prosecution may fail irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations.

Section 69 BNS at a Glance

Essential Ingredient Why It Matters
Sexual intercourse The foundational factual requirement of the offence.
Not amounting to rape Section 69 applies only to conduct outside the statutory definition of rape.
Deceitful means or promise to marry Identifies the conduct alleged to have induced the sexual intercourse.
Promise made without intention to fulfil The principal mental element that distinguishes a false promise from a genuine but unfulfilled promise.
Proof through admissible evidence Every ingredient must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

What Section 69 BNS Actually Criminalises

Section 69 BNS criminalises sexual relations where consent is obtained by deception, specifically through a false promise to marry made with no intention to fulfil it at the very beginning.

The law does not punish:

  • Breakups

  • Relationship failures

  • Change of intention

  • Family pressure or incompatibility

It punishes intentional deceit at the inception.

Why the Essential Ingredients Matter

Every criminal offence consists of specific legal elements that the prosecution must establish before a conviction can be sustained. These elements are commonly referred to as the essential ingredients of the offence.

Section 69 BNS is no exception. The court does not decide whether an offence has been committed merely because a complaint has been filed or because a relationship ended unsuccessfully. Instead, the court examines whether the prosecution has proved every statutory requirement contained in Section 69.

This approach reflects two fundamental principles of Indian criminal law.

First, the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. The accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, every ingredient must be proved independently. Failure to establish even one essential ingredient may be sufficient to defeat the prosecution case.

For this reason, courts analyse the statutory language of Section 69 carefully rather than deciding cases solely on emotional considerations or the eventual outcome of the relationship.

Breaking Down the Statutory Language

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is drafted as a single statutory provision. However, like every criminal offence, it is not interpreted as one continuous sentence. Courts read the provision by identifying the individual legal requirements contained within the statutory language and then examining whether each requirement has been established on the evidence.

This method of statutory interpretation is fundamental to criminal law. Every offence consists of specific legal elements that collectively define criminal liability. A court does not determine guilt by looking only at the outcome of a relationship or the allegations contained in the complaint. Instead, it asks whether the prosecution has proved each essential ingredient prescribed by Parliament.

Accordingly, Section 69 BNS can be broken down into five distinct statutory ingredients. These include the existence of sexual intercourse, the requirement that the act must not amount to the offence of rape, the allegation that the sexual intercourse was obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry, the requirement that the promise was allegedly made without any intention of fulfilling it, and the obligation upon the prosecution to establish every ingredient through legally admissible evidence.

Breaking the provision into these individual components serves an important purpose. It ensures that courts analyse every statutory requirement separately rather than treating Section 69 as a broad prohibition against failed relationships or unfulfilled promises. This structured approach also reflects the fundamental principle that criminal liability arises only when all the ingredients of the offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The following sections examine each essential ingredient of Section 69 BNS individually, explain its legal significance, and discuss the principles that courts are likely to apply while determining whether the offence has been established.

Essential Ingredients of Section 69 BNS

Although Section 69 is drafted as a single provision, it contains several distinct legal components. For analytical purposes, it can be broken down into five essential ingredients:

  1. There must be sexual intercourse between the parties.
  2. The sexual intercourse must not amount to the offence of rape.
  3. The prosecution must establish that the sexual intercourse was obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry.
  4. Where the allegation is based on a promise of marriage, the prosecution must establish that the promise was made without any intention of fulfilling it.
  5. Every ingredient must be established through legally admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Each of these ingredients raises different factual and legal issues. Courts examine them separately before determining whether the offence under Section 69 has been established.

1. Sexual Intercourse

The first and most fundamental ingredient of Section 69 BNS is that there must have been sexual intercourse between the parties. Without proof of this foundational fact, the question of applying Section 69 does not arise.

The provision does not criminalise the making of a promise to marry by itself. Nor does it punish the mere existence of a romantic relationship or engagement. The alleged deception must culminate in sexual intercourse before Section 69 becomes relevant.

During investigation and trial, the prosecution must therefore establish that sexual intercourse took place. Depending upon the facts of the case, this may involve documentary evidence, medical evidence where available, electronic communications, witness testimony, admissions, or other legally admissible material. The nature and sufficiency of evidence will vary from case to case, and no single form of evidence is mandatory in every prosecution.

The existence of sexual intercourse is only the starting point. The prosecution must still establish every remaining statutory ingredient before criminal liability under Section 69 can arise.

2. Sexual Intercourse Must Not Amount to the Offence of Rape

Section 69 expressly applies only where the alleged sexual intercourse does not amount to the offence of rape. These words are not incidental; they define the scope of the provision and distinguish it from other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

This limitation indicates that Parliament intended Section 69 to operate as a distinct statutory offence rather than as an extension of the law relating to rape. Consequently, before considering whether the ingredients of Section 69 are satisfied, the court must determine whether the allegations fall outside the statutory definition of rape.

If the facts of a particular case disclose an offence of rape under the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the prosecution must proceed under those provisions. Section 69 is intended to govern only those situations that fall within its own statutory language.

Accordingly, the prosecution must establish not only that sexual intercourse occurred, but also that the case falls within the limited category of conduct contemplated by Section 69.

3. Sexual Intercourse Must Be Obtained by Deceitful Means or a Promise to Marry

The third ingredient concerns the means by which the sexual intercourse is alleged to have been obtained. Section 69 does not criminalise every instance of sexual intercourse between consenting adults. Instead, the prosecution must establish that the alleged sexual intercourse occurred because of one of the circumstances specified in the statute.

The provision recognises two broad categories:

  • sexual intercourse allegedly obtained by deceitful means; or
  • sexual intercourse allegedly obtained through a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling that promise.

The Explanation to Section 69 further clarifies that the expression “deceitful means” includes specified forms of deception such as making a false promise of employment or promotion, or concealing one’s identity before marriage. These statutory examples indicate that Parliament intended to criminalise only particular forms of deception rather than every instance of dishonesty or disappointment within a relationship.

During trial, the prosecution must identify the precise statutory basis on which the allegation rests. A vague assertion that deception occurred is insufficient. The court must be able to examine whether the alleged conduct falls within the language employed by Parliament.

4. The Promise Must Have Been Made Without Any Intention of Fulfilling It

Where the prosecution relies upon a promise to marry, this becomes one of the most significant ingredients of Section 69.

The statute does not criminalise every promise that ultimately remains unfulfilled. Instead, it specifically refers to a promise made without any intention of fulfilling it. These words introduce the mental element of the offence and require the court to examine the alleged intention existing at the time the promise was made.

Since intention cannot ordinarily be proved by direct evidence, courts generally infer it from surrounding circumstances. The conduct of the parties, the chronology of events, communications exchanged during the relationship, family involvement, and subsequent behaviour may all become relevant while determining whether the statutory requirement has been established.

This distinction is critical. A relationship may fail because of changed circumstances, incompatibility, family opposition, or other intervening events. Such circumstances do not automatically establish that the original promise lacked genuine intention. The prosecution must prove, on the evidence, that the alleged absence of intention existed when the promise was made.

For this reason, the question of intention has consistently occupied a central place in judicial decisions concerning false promise of marriage cases and is likely to remain one of the most contested issues under Section 69 BNS.

5. Every Ingredient Must Be Proved Through Admissible Evidence

Like every criminal prosecution, proceedings under Section 69 BNS are governed by the fundamental principle that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. Every essential ingredient of the offence must be established through legally admissible evidence before a conviction can be recorded.

The court does not decide a case merely because allegations have been made or an FIR has been registered. Instead, it evaluates the entire body of evidence produced during investigation and trial. Depending upon the facts, this may include witness testimony, electronic communications, photographs, audio or video recordings, financial records, travel documents, medical evidence, or other relevant material that is admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

No single piece of evidence is ordinarily decisive. Courts examine the evidence collectively, assess its reliability and consistency, and determine whether the prosecution has proved each statutory ingredient beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, establishing sexual intercourse alone, proving the existence of a relationship, or demonstrating that marriage did not eventually take place is not sufficient. The prosecution must prove every statutory requirement contained in Section 69 through credible and admissible evidence before criminal liability can arise.

Section 69 BNS is not established by proving only one or two facts. The prosecution must prove all five essential ingredients through admissible evidence. Failure to establish any one of these ingredients may be sufficient to defeat the prosecution case. This principle reflects the presumption of innocence and the requirement that criminal charges be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This transition also leads naturally into the next section on Supreme Court Principles Governing the Essential Ingredients of Section 69 BNS.

What is Not an Ingredient of Section 69 BNS?

Courts have clearly held that the following are not ingredients of Section 69 BNS:

  • Failure to marry

  • Emotional trauma after breakup

  • Societal pressure

  • Family refusal

  • Change of mind

Criminal law is not meant to enforce relationships.

How Courts Analyse the Essential Ingredients of Section 69 BNS

The essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS are not applied in isolation. During investigation and trial, courts undertake a comprehensive examination of the facts and evidence to determine whether the prosecution has established every statutory requirement beyond reasonable doubt. The enquiry is not limited to whether a promise of marriage was made or whether the parties ultimately married. Instead, the court analyses the entire factual matrix in the light of the statutory language.

In practice, courts generally begin by examining whether the foundational facts of the offence have been established. They then consider whether the alleged sexual intercourse falls within the scope of Section 69, whether the prosecution has identified the specific deceitful means or promise relied upon, and whether the allegation is supported by legally admissible evidence. Each ingredient is assessed independently because the failure to prove even one essential element may affect the prosecution’s case.

Particular attention is often paid to the chronology of events. Courts examine when the parties first met, how the relationship developed, when the alleged promise of marriage was made, when sexual intercourse allegedly took place, and the circumstances in which the relationship eventually ended. A carefully established timeline frequently assists the court in determining whether the statutory ingredients have been proved.

Where the allegation is based on a promise to marry, courts also examine the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the prosecution has produced evidence capable of supporting the allegation that the promise was made without any intention of fulfilling it. Since intention is a state of mind, it is ordinarily inferred from objective facts rather than direct evidence. Communications between the parties, their conduct throughout the relationship, involvement of family members, and subsequent events may all become relevant depending upon the facts of the particular case.

Courts also evaluate the quality and reliability of the evidence produced by the prosecution. Depending on the circumstances, this may include oral testimony, electronic communications, photographs, audio or video recordings, travel records, financial documents, medical evidence where available, and other material admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. No single piece of evidence is ordinarily decisive. The court considers the evidence collectively to determine whether it establishes each statutory ingredient beyond reasonable doubt.

Above all, courts avoid adopting a mechanical approach. The mere existence of a relationship, a subsequent refusal to marry, or the registration of an FIR does not automatically establish the offence under Section 69 BNS. Equally, the length of the relationship or the volume of communications between the parties is not conclusive by itself. Every prosecution is decided on its own facts, the credibility of the evidence, and the proper application of the statutory ingredients to those facts.

For this reason, the judicial analysis of Section 69 BNS ultimately centres on a single question: Has the prosecution proved every essential ingredient of the offence through credible and legally admissible evidence? If the answer is in the negative, criminal liability under Section 69 cannot be sustained. This principle reflects the fundamental presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Recommended reading: Learn how courts test false promise to marry cases under Section 69 BNS.

Supreme Court Principles Governing the Essential Ingredients of Section 69 BNS

Although Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a newly enacted statutory provision, the legal questions arising from a false promise of marriage are not entirely new. For decades, the Supreme Court of India examined similar issues while deciding whether consent for sexual intercourse had been obtained through a false promise of marriage under the Indian Penal Code.

Section 69 now creates an independent statutory offence. However, many expressions used by Parliament—particularly “making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same”—raise questions that have long been considered by the courts. Until a substantial body of precedent develops under Section 69 itself, judicial principles evolved by the Supreme Court are likely to remain valuable in understanding these expressions, subject to the language of the new statute.

The following principles emerge consistently from Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Principle 1: Every Broken Promise to Marry Is Not a Criminal Offence

One of the clearest principles established by the Supreme Court is that criminal liability does not arise merely because a relationship ends without marriage.

The law distinguishes between:

  • a promise that was genuinely made but later could not be fulfilled due to changed circumstances; and
  • a promise allegedly made without any intention of being honoured from the very beginning.

This distinction is equally significant while analysing Section 69 BNS. The prosecution must establish the statutory ingredients prescribed by the section rather than relying solely on the fact that the relationship ultimately failed.

Principle 2: The Intention Must Exist at the Time the Promise Was Made

Section 69 specifically refers to a promise made without any intention of fulfilling it.

Accordingly, the crucial legal question is not whether marriage eventually took place, but whether the alleged intention existed at the time the promise was made.

Since intention is a state of mind, courts ordinarily infer it from surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence. The chronology of events, communications between the parties, and subsequent conduct may all become relevant while assessing this issue.

Principle 3: Courts Examine the Entire Relationship

Courts do not determine criminal liability by isolating one conversation, one message, or one incident.

Instead, they generally examine the relationship as a whole, including:

  • how the parties met;
  • the duration of the relationship;
  • discussions regarding marriage;
  • involvement of family members;
  • electronic communications;
  • conduct before and after the alleged promise; and
  • the circumstances in which the relationship ended.

This comprehensive evaluation enables the court to determine whether the statutory ingredients have been established on the evidence.

Principle 4: Subsequent Refusal to Marry Does Not Automatically Establish Earlier Criminal Intention

The fact that a person later refuses to marry does not, by itself, prove that the original promise was false.

Relationships may end for numerous reasons, including personal incompatibility, family opposition, health concerns, financial circumstances, or other intervening events.

Accordingly, courts generally distinguish between subsequent events and the intention existing at the inception of the promise. The former may be relevant but is not necessarily conclusive of the latter.

Principle 5: Every Case Depends Upon Its Own Facts

False promise of marriage cases rarely involve identical factual situations.

Some relationships continue for several years. Others may involve engagement ceremonies, family participation, financial transactions, or extensive electronic communication. Some complaints are lodged immediately, while others are filed after considerable delay.

Because of these factual variations, courts repeatedly emphasise that no universal formula can determine whether the statutory ingredients are satisfied. Each prosecution must be decided on its own evidence.

Principle 6: The Burden of Proof Always Remains on the Prosecution

Section 69 does not alter the fundamental principles of criminal law.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every essential ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution discharges that burden through legally admissible evidence.

This principle applies equally during investigation, trial, and appellate proceedings.

Related Guide: When Not to File an FIR Quashing Petition: Lessons from Allahabad High Court

Common Mistakes While Analysing the Essential Ingredients

Misunderstanding the statutory ingredients often leads to incorrect assumptions about the scope of Section 69. Some of the most common mistakes include:

Assuming Every Failed Relationship Attracts Section 69

The failure of a relationship or a refusal to marry does not automatically establish the offence. The prosecution must prove the statutory ingredients prescribed by Section 69.

Ignoring the Requirement of Intention

The statute refers specifically to a promise made without any intention of fulfilling it. A court must examine whether this statutory requirement has been established on the evidence.

Looking at Only One Piece of Evidence

Courts evaluate the evidence as a whole. WhatsApp messages, emails, photographs, witness testimony, financial records, and the overall chronology may all be relevant depending on the facts of the case.

Assuming Registration of an FIR Establishes the Ingredients

An FIR only initiates the criminal investigation. The prosecution must still prove every ingredient before a conviction can be recorded.

Practical Checklist: Has the Prosecution Established Every Essential Ingredient?

Before concluding that an offence under Section 69 BNS is made out, the following questions should be considered:

  • Has the prosecution established that sexual intercourse took place?
  • Does the alleged conduct fall outside the statutory definition of rape?
  • Has the prosecution identified the specific deceitful means or promise relied upon?
  • If the allegation is based on a promise to marry, is there evidence that it was allegedly made without any intention of fulfilling it?
  • Has every statutory ingredient been supported by legally admissible evidence?
  • Has the prosecution discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt?

These questions do not determine the outcome of any particular case. Rather, they provide a structured framework for analysing whether the statutory requirements of Section 69 have been addressed during investigation and trial.

Related Guides on Section 69 BNS

If you wish to explore the subject further, you may also read our detailed guides on Section 69 BNS to understand the law, criminal procedure and judicial principles:

Conclusion

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 creates a distinct statutory offence with clearly defined legal requirements. A prosecution under this provision does not succeed merely because a relationship ended without marriage or because allegations have been made. Criminal liability depends upon whether the prosecution establishes every essential ingredient prescribed by the statute through legally admissible evidence and proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The five essential ingredients discussed in this guide provide the legal framework for analysing every case under Section 69 BNS. Courts are required to examine whether sexual intercourse took place, whether the case falls outside the statutory definition of rape, whether the alleged sexual intercourse was obtained by deceitful means or a promise to marry, whether the promise was allegedly made without any intention of being fulfilled, and whether each of these elements has been proved on the evidence. If any one of these ingredients is not established, the prosecution case may not succeed.

As judicial interpretation of Section 69 BNS continues to evolve, these statutory ingredients will remain central to investigations, bail proceedings, discharge applications, trials, appeals, and petitions for quashing of criminal proceedings. For litigants, lawyers, and researchers alike, a clear understanding of these ingredients is the starting point for analysing any allegation under Section 69.

Readers who wish to stay updated on developments related to Section 69 BNS, may join our legal awareness community on WhatsApp by clicking here.

The information provided in this article is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. If you require further information or legal assistance, you may contact us at section69bns@gmail.com.

Tagged , , , , Posted on Posted in Legal Insights
Scroll to top