If the Victim Voluntarily Consentes to Physical Intercourse, the Man Cannot Be Held Guilty of Making False Marriage Promises: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that if an adult victim knowingly and voluntarily consents to sexual intercourse with a man, the man cannot later be found guilty of committing the crime of rape on the pretext of marriage.

a single bench Judge Ananya Bandopadhyay caught:

The relationship between the parties was undoubtedly consensual. Being an adult, the aggrieved lady was aware of the consequences of such a relationship and the appellant’s refusal to marry her would have wide consequences. Since the victim was an adult woman, she could not have been a victim of the concept of marriage promise that preceded her. information about future possibilities, odds, and possibilities if that promise is not fulfilled.

The appeal was filed against the conviction of the appellant for the offense of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and simple imprisonment in default. 3 more months.

The prosecution’s contention was that the victim filed a written complaint alleging that the complainant and appellant had become romantically involved and had eloped. The appellant and the complainant, upon the assurance of marriage, had physical intercourse several times at her home in the absence of her parents, after which the complainant became pregnant.

It was stated that the complainant insisted on abortion and refused to get married, and that the complainant filed the complaint in the ninth month of her pregnancy.

The appellant’s lawyer stated that the victim girl stated in her complaint and statement that she did not object to physical intimacy and consented to it, therefore the incident in question could not be called rape in any way. because this was a consensual act between the victim and the appellant.

It was stated that the victim girl also stated that she told the phenomenon of closeness to her friend Makali Soren, but the said Makali Soren was not examined. The counsel further submitted that the appellant’s act did not fall under any of the definitions of “rape” mentioned in Section 375 of the IPC.

It was also argued that the belief that the marriage promise should be fulfilled was not a misunderstanding. The problem of misconception will only arise if the consented act is believed by the consenting person to be something else and sexual intercourse is performed under this pretext. It was stated that in the concrete case, consent was not obtained through fraud, but with the promise of an action at an unspecified date in the future, and that this did not fall within the definition of rape.

The victim girl stated that she was abandoned immediately after she became pregnant. She gave birth to a daughter and the victim girl’s father testified that the victim was in a romantic relationship with the appellant, who promised to marry her and raped her.

The court, which listened to the parties, relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case. Maheshwar Tigga v State of Jharkhand, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“25. … Usually in such situations, when two young people are madly in love with each other, they promise each other many times that they will get married no matter what. As the prosecutor pointed out, the appellant also made such a promise on more than one occasion. In such cases, especially when they succumb to emotions and passion and find themselves in situations and circumstances where they succumb to the temptation to engage in sexual intercourse at a weak moment, the promise loses all meaning.”

“This appears to have been the case in this case as well, and the prosecutor voluntarily consented to sexual intercourse with the plaintiff, with whom he was deeply in love, not only because he had promised to marry her, but also because he himself desired it. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor gave consent as a result of a misunderstanding arising from his promise.” It would be very difficult to attribute it to the appellant’s knowledge. In any event, the appellant had no way of knowing what the prosecutor had in mind when he consented because he had more than one reason to consent.”

Therefore, the court accepted the appeal and annulled the conviction given to the defendant.

Case: Biswanath Murmu-Vs-State of West Bengal

Case No: MKK 562, 2011

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241

Click here to read the rankings