. The court stated that merely breaching a promise to marry is not sufficient to constitute rape. The ruling came in response to a case where a man was accused of rape after reneging on his promise to marry a woman. The court emphasized the need for clear evidence to show that the accused never intended to marry the victim and had made false promises solely to establish a physical relationship. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between a breach of promise and a false promise made with no intention of keeping it. The court’s decision sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances and reinforces the requirement for a strong burden of proof in such cases. This ruling aims to prevent misuse of rape laws in cases where a consensual physical relationship turns sour due to broken promises of marriage. It also serves as a reminder for individuals to be cautious in establishing intimate relationships based on promises of commitment. The judgment underscores the significance of mutual trust and honesty in relationships to avoid legal repercussions.