The intersection of intimate relationships and criminal law remains one of the most sensitive and fiercely litigated areas in the Indian justice system. With the overhaul of India’s criminal jurisprudence, the legal framework governing allegations involving a broken promise of marriage has transitioned from judicial interpretations under the old IPC to explicit codification under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Simultaneously, the rules of evidence have been modernized under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. For individuals facing false, retaliatory, or misunderstood allegations arising from a failed relationship, understanding how to construct a robust legal defence using modern evidentiary tools is critical to securing an honourable acquittal.

Understanding the Legal Framework: BNS Section 69 and the BSA, 2023:

Under previous laws (Section 375 read with Section 90 of the IPC, 1860), allegations involving sexual relations on the premise of marriage were typically prosecuted directly as rape. Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, addresses sexual intercourse by “deceitful means”—explicitly including a false promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.

However, Supreme Court jurisprudence (such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra) has consistently drawn a vital distinction: There is a fundamental difference between a false promise to marry given from the very inception (which is criminalized) and a breach of a promise arising from subsequent, genuine domestic or social circumstances (which is a relationship failure, not a crime).

To secure an acquittal, a defense strategy must effectively deconstruct the prosecution’s claims by leveraging the rigorous mandates of proof under the BSA, 2023.

Strategic Legal Defences for Acquittal Under BSA, 2023:

Criminal trials depend heavily on the burden of proof and the standard of evidence. The BSA, 2023, while integrating cutting-edge digital provisions, still requires the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Disproving Initial Mens Rea(Lack of Intent from Inception):

• The Legal Principle: To sustain a charge under Section 69 BNS, the prosecution must prove that the accused harboured no intention of marrying the complainant at the exact time the relationship or sexual contact began.
• The Defence Strategy: Defence counsel must introduce contemporaneous evidence—such as communications, family discussions, or efforts made toward a future life together—to demonstrate that the intention to marry was genuine at the outset. If a relationship progressed naturally over years and dissolved due to subsequent incompatibilities, family opposition, or lifestyle differences, the element of “deceitful intent from day one” collapses.

2. Establishing Mutuality and Active Consent via Digital Forensics (BSA, 2023):

Relationships today are extensively documented through digital footprints: WhatsApp chats, Instagram DMs, emails, call logs, and photographs.

• Leveraging BSA Section 61 & 63: Under the BSA, electronic records are treated as primary evidence provided they meet specific integrity standards.
• The Defence Strategy: Meticulously curate and preserve chat histories that reflect a mutually active, consensual, and autonomous relationship. Messages showing the complainant making independent decisions, expressing affection, or later displaying anger, jealousy, or threats of retaliation (“I will ruin your life”) after a breakup are vital. Under the rules of electronic evidence, authentic chat archives can be brought on record to showcase that the relationship was characterized by mutual partnership rather than subjugation or systemic deception.

3. Highlighting the Delay in FIR Registration:

• The Defence Strategy: A long, unexplained delay between the alleged cessation of the relationship and the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) is a classic ground for doubt. If the relationship ended months or years prior—especially if the delay coincides with the accused marrying someone else or moving forward in life—the defence can argue that the criminal process is being weaponized as an instrument of post-facto vengeance or coercion, rather than a genuine grievance of initial deception.

4. Cross-Examination Focusing on Contradictions and Material Omissions:

• The Defence Strategy: In cases involving intimate personal histories, witness testimony is paramount. Under the BSA, rigorous cross-examination during trial must focus on highlighting contradictions between the initial police statement (under BNSS Section 183) and testimony given in court. Inconsistencies regarding timelines, promises made, or the presence of coercion severely dent the credibility of the complainant’s narrative.

Conclusion:

Facing an allegation under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, carries severe social and personal consequences. However, the law itself requires a high threshold of proof: a broken relationship does not automatically equate to a criminal deception. By utilizing a well-planned defence strategy centered on the absence of initial mens rea, leveraging digital communications as primary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and exposing timelines of retaliation, accused individuals can effectively dismantle fabricated or untenable charges and secure a rightful acquittal.

Disclaimer: This summary is for informational purposes and does not constitute formal legal advice. The interpretation of these grounds is highly dependent on judicial precedent and the specific facts of your case. Always consult with a qualified advocate regarding the strategy for your petition.