Md. Shawkat Alam Faisal

On March 20, 2025, the Bangladeshi government approved the draft of the "Amendment to Women and Children Repression Prevention Act". According to the authorized draft, the maximum punishment for the crime of rape on the false promise of marriage is seven years. The notion of rape on the false promise of marriage, popularly referred to as "বিয়ের প্রলোভনে ধর্ষণ", has become a problematic subject in Bangladesh's legal and social discourse. This belief holds that if a man deceives a woman into a sexual connection by falsely promising marriage, his failure to keep the promise constitutes rape. However, from a legal and jurisprudential standpoint, this concept is riddled with inconsistencies, rendering it an invalid foundation for criminal responsibility.

In Bangladesh, the Penal Code of 1860 is the fundamental law covering sexual offenses, which is strengthened by the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000. Rape is defined in Section 375 of the Penal Code of 1860 as a man engaging in sexual contact with a woman without her consent or against her will. Section 376 specifies the sentence, which can range from life imprisonment to a term of at least ten years. The Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000 establishes harsher punishments for rape and associated offenses, frequently culminating to capital punishment in severe situations.

The absence of "free and volntary consent" is an essential component in the definition of rape. Courts have viewed permission gained by fraud (such as a false promise of marriage) as vitiated, resulting in rape. However, this strategy creates serious legal and practical difficulties.
The concept of "Rape by Promise of Marriage" is nonsense. Firstly, it defies the criminal law principle of mens rea. Criminal responsibility necessitates the presence of both mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). In circumstances of deception-based rape, the accused must have had an initial purpose to deceive. However, establishing that a man never meant to marry the woman while having sexual intercourse is incredibly difficult. A rupture in a relationship, broken engagement, familial disapproval, or financial restraints may result in a change in marriage intent, which should not be considered a criminal violation.
Secondly, it conflicts with the definition of rape. Rape, by legal definition, requires force, coercion, or the absence of consent. When a woman willingly enters into a sexual relationship based on the promise of marriage, the act is consensual at the time it occurs. If the promise is later broken, it is considered a breach of trust or a moral failure, rather than a violent crime like rape. Treating unfulfilled commitments as rape broadens the legal term beyond its intended meaning.
Thirdly, there are evidential issues and the possibility of misuse. There is a paucity of direct evidence in these types of cases. Proving that the accused made a fraudulent commitment with dishonest intent is incredibly difficult. In contrast to physical evidence in rape prosecutions, these cases are almost completely based on subjective testimony. Furthermore, False Allegations pose a hazard. The ambiguity of this charge allows for abuse and personal vendettas, in which a woman may falsely allege rape after a relationship ends due to emotional pain or vengeance.
Fourthly, there may be alternative legal remedies. If a man deceives a woman into a sexual connection by making a false promise of marriage, a civil or contract law suit, such as one for damages or fraud, would be more appropriate. The Penal Code of 1860 contains measures under Section 415 (cheating) that may handle fraudulent promises. However, labeling it as rape diminishes the impact of true sexual offenses.
Bangladesh's courts have taken varied positions on this topic. In certain circumstances, courts have acknowledged "rape by promise of marriage," but in others, they have stressed the importance of showing fraudulent intent at the time of the crime. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has emphasized that for a rape conviction based on a false promise of marriage, the prosecution must prove that: a) The promise was false at the time it was made. b) The accused never intended to keep the pledge. c) The woman's permission was entirely based on a false promise. This rigorous standard reflects the difficulties in proving such instances beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Indian Supreme Court has been skeptical about rape cases based on false marriage offers, highlighting the importance of clear proof of fraudulent intent (Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013). However, Indian courts argue that if the accused knew from the start that he would not marry, this could void consent. Western judicial systems do not recognize "rape by promise of marriage." Instead, they report such occurrences as fraud, breach of trust, or civil claims. Rape is defined precisely as nonconsensual intercourse requiring force or incapacity to consent, rather than deception about future intentions.
The criminalization of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage is deeply demeaning to women. It presupposes that women lack agency and will engage in sexual relations with any man merely for the promise of marriage, which is an antiquated and regressive viewpoint. Such a provision undermines women's dignity by portraying them as readily duped rather than informed decision makers. Furthermore, earlier data show that approximately 80% of rape allegations in recent years were determined to be fraudulent, emphasizing the substantial risk of abuse. If a law specifically criminalizing broken marriage pledges were to be enacted, it might lead to an exponential increase in false charges, resulting in unjust convictions and undermining the credibility of true rape survivors.
The concept of rape by false promise of marriage is both legally and practically problematic in Bangladesh's criminal justice system. While false promises of marriage are ethically and socially unacceptable, they do not meet the legal definition of rape, which requires force, coercion, or incapacity to consent. Using this approach risks trivializing actual rape cases, encouraging false charges, and burdening the judiciary with subjective assertions. Rather than labeling broken marriage pledges as rape, a more consistent legal approach would be to define such situations as fraud, breach of promise, or contractual culpability. To preserve the dignity of criminal law while providing justice to actual victims of sexual violence, judicial interpretation change is required.

The writer is a, holds an LL.B. (Hons.) and an LL.M. in International Law from the University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, and currently serves as an Apprentice Lawyer at the Bangladesh Bar Council.