Consensual Intimacy in a Relationship Cannot Later Be Branded Rape Merely Because It Ended, Rules Supreme Court in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State
Case: Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State (Station House Officer, Kadirur Police Station, Thalassery, Kannur District) and Another
Citation: 2026 INSC 1179
Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Proceedings: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10173-10174 of 2025
Court Observation
“Physical intimacy that occurred during the currency of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as an act of rape merely because the relationship soured and no longer subsists”
Summary
The Supreme Court has discharged Santhosh Kumar N.P. of charges of rape, cheating and related offences, setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order of 21 May 2025 and the trial court’s order refusing discharge. The Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual between two adults and that the acts were not forced.
The Court stressed the need to distinguish between consent that is absent from the outset because it was built entirely on deceit and falsehood, and regret over past consensual acts arising from the later failure of a relationship. Hindsight alone, it held, cannot convert a consensual relationship into a crime, and courts must view the entire relationship holistically rather than from the perspective of its end.
Key Holdings
- Physical intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship later soured and no longer subsists.
- There is a distinction between absence of consent from the outset, built on a mirage of deceit and falsehood, and regret over having consented to past acts owing to the later demise of a relationship.
- Repeated sexual acts forming part of an ongoing relationship cannot be artificially severed to attract Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
- On the facts, no prima facie case was made out under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, and the trial court and the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant.
Background
The complainant, then a divorced woman, claimed she developed a relationship with the appellant after he represented himself as a bachelor and offered to marry her. In 1996 they travelled to Mysuru, performed rituals at a temple and lived together as a married couple until 2003, consenting to sexual relations on the presumption of a valid marriage. The Court noted that she continued cohabitation even after learning of the appellant’s earlier marriage and children within six months of beginning to live with him in 1996, and that documents relating to IVF treatments and joint bank accounts suggested a long-standing personal relationship.
Related Articles
- Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Is Not a False Promise of Marriage, Rules Karnataka High Court
- No Allegation That Promise To Marry Was False At The Inception: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case
- Supreme Court Clarifies: Promise to Marry and Consensual Relationship Based on Consent Do Not Amount to Rape—POCSO Case Quashed
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
