The criminal justice system of India has undergone a significant transformation with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which replaced the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) which replaced the Indian Evidence Act on July 1, 2024. The three major Criminal Acts aim to modernize the criminal justice system of India. The Act ensures greater accountability, fairness and clarity in legal proceedings.

While the BNS retains several provisions from the IPC, many have been modified, replaced, or newly introduced to align with contemporary legal needs. Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims to protect women from exploitation arising from fraudulent promises, particularly in the context of relationships, marriage, and employment. Given its far-reaching implications, understanding Section 69 BNS is crucial. This article explores its practical effects, legal significance, and the penalties it prescribes. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 69 BNS

Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc

Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 

Explanation: “deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity

Note: “The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”

Simplified Interpretation of Section 69 BNS

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means and consists of three key interdependent elements.

• Firstly it penalizes sexual intercourse where consent was obtained through a false promise of marriage. In cases when the perpetrator never intended to fulfill the promise from the outset. It also includes deception such as concealing identity when making a false marriage promise.
• Secondly Section 69 BNS explicitly states that such an offence does not amount to rape and cannot be prosecuted under rape laws.
• Thirdly individuals convicted under this section face a maximum punishment of ten years of imprisonment and a fine payable to the aggrieved party.

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita consists of essential elements that set it apart from earlier provisions. The following are the essential elements of this provision -

• False Promise of Marriage: If an individual induces someone into a sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage, it qualifies as a criminal offence under this provision.
• Intent to Deceive: The law places significance on intent. If it is proved that the promise was made with an intention to deceive then the accused will be held liable.
• Punishment: If anyone convicted under Section 69 BNS he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. It highlights the seriousness of such deceitful acts and acts as a strong deterrent.
• Protection of Consent: Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bolster the principle that consent must be genuine and free from fraud or misrepresentation by criminalizing sexual relations obtained through deception.

Nature and Scope of Section 69 BNS

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, such as false promises of marriage or employment. Now the question is whether Section 69 BNS is bailable or not? Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is -

• Cognizable: Police can arrest the accused without a warrant.
• Non-bailable: The accused cannot claim pre-trial bail as a matter of right.
• Non-compoundable: The case cannot be settled through mutual agreement.
• Trial Process: The offence is triable only in the Court of Sessions.

Section 69 BNS strengthens legal clarity on consent, deception, and false promises of marriage, aligning with evolving societal norms. Key aspects include:

• Distinguishing False vs. Unfulfilled Promises: The law differentiates between a promise made in good faith but later unfulfilled and a deliberately false promise intended to deceive.
• Consent and Misconception of Fact: It addresses consent obtained through deception, in line with Section 90 of Indian Penal Code, ensuring that consent based on false pretenses is legally invalid.
• Legal Basis for Prosecution: Section 69 provides grounds to prosecute individuals who engage in sexual acts through deceit, particularly false promises of marriage.
• Judicial Interpretations: Courts have previously examined similar issues, as seen in cases like Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Yedla Srinibas v. State of Andhra Pradesh. These rulings help clarify the boundaries between rape and consensual sex obtained through deception.

Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 493 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with deception in sexual relationships but they differ in scope and application. The table below highlights their key distinctions:

Judicial Interpretation of False Promise and Consent

The Supreme Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2022) distinguished between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise. A false promise is made with the intent to deceive from the outset whereas a breach of promise occurs when a commitment was initially made in good faith but could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances beyond legal culpability. Various court rulings have further clarified when consent based on a promise of marriage constitutes an offence:

Uday vs State of Karnataka (2003)

The Supreme Court in Uday vs State of Karnataka emphasized that consent obtained through a false promise of marriage must be evaluated contextually, considering factors like the victim’s age, social background and education.

Rohit Tiwari v. State (2016)

The Delhi High Court ruled that if a mature woman willingly engages in sexual relations based on a promise to marry and continues the relationship over time, it does not necessarily constitute deception but may reflect mutual choice.

Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)

The Supreme Court observed that not every unfulfilled marriage promise amounts to deception warranting prosecution under Section 376 IPC. The Court recognized that a man may genuinely intend to marry but later face unforeseen circumstances preventing him from doing so.

Conclusion

Section 69 BNS reinforces the legal safeguards against sexual exploitation through deceitful means especially false promises of marriage or employment. By criminalizing such acts it strengthens the principle that consent must be free from fraud or misrepresentation. Its classification as a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence underscores its severity, ensures accountability and legal clarity.

Download 5 Key take aways on Section 69 BNS PDF