Man Cannot Be Held Guilty Of False Promise To Marry When Victim Willingly Consented To Physical Relationship: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that when an adult victim knowingly and willingly consented to sexual relations with a man, the man cannot later be held guilty for committing the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage.

A single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:

The relationship between the parties was indubitably consensual. The victim lady being an adult was aware of the consequences of such relationship and denial on the part of the appellant to marry her would entail wide ramification.The victim being an adult lady could not have been a prey to the promise to marry concept foregoing her knowledge of subsequent possibilities, probabilities and eventualities if such promise was not acted upon.

The appeal was moved against the conviction of the appellant for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another 3 months.

The prosecution case was that the victim lodged a written complaint alleging the complainant and the appellant being romantically involved, had eloped. On an assurance of marriage the appellant and the complainant indulged in a physical relationship several times at her house in the absence of her parents and thereafter the complainant became pregnant.

It was stated that the appellant insisted her to abort and refused to marry her and the complainant on the ninth month of her pregnancy lodged the complaint.

Advocate for the appellant submitted that the victim girl stated in the complaint, as well as in her testimony that she did not raise any objection to the physical intimacy and consented to the same and as such in no way the said incident can be termed as rape as it was a consensual act between the victim as well as the appellant.

It was stated that the victim girl also deposed that she narrated the fact of intimacy to her friend namely Makali Soren but the said Makali Soren was not examined. Counsel also stated that the act of the appellant had not fallen into any of the definitions of "rape" laid down in Section 375 IPC.

It was further submitted that a belief that the promise of marriage was meant to be fulfilled was not a misconception of fact. The question of misconception of fact will arise only if the act consented to, is believed by the person Consenting to be something else, and on that pretext sexual intercourse is committed. It was stated that in the present case, consent was not obtained by fraud but rather on a promise of an act at a future uncertain date and the same did not fall within the definition of rape.

The victim girl deposed that she was abandoned just after being pregnant. She gave birth to a female child and the father of the victim girl deposed the victim to have been in a romantic relationship with the appellant who on promise to marry her, ravished her.

Upon hearing the parties, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v State of Jharkhand, wherein the Apex Court held:

“25. … It usually happens in such cases, when two young persons are madly in love, that they promise to each other several times that come what may, they will get married. As stated by the prosecutrix the appellant also made such a promise on more than one occasion. In such circumstances the promise loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they, in a weak moment, succumb to the temptation of having sexual relationship."

"This is what appears to have happened in this case as well, and the prosecutrix willingly consented to having sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was deeply in love, not because he promised to marry her, but because she also desired it. In these circumstances it would be very difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge that the prosecutrix had consented in consequence of a misconception of fact arising from his promise. In any event, it was not possible for the appellant to know what was in the mind of the prosecutrix when she consented, because there were more reasons than one for her to consent.”

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant.

Case: Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal

Case No: C.R.A. 562 of 2011

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241

Click here to read order