The Calcutta High Court set aside a rape conviction, ruling that a prolonged physical relationship between consenting adults indicates mutual consent, not coercion, under Section 376 IPC. The Court found the affair voluntary and affectionate.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty under Section 376 (rape) and Section 415 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a case of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Prasenjit Biswas, allowing the appeal, held that the alleged sexual relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual, not coercive, and that the trial court had erred in convicting the accused.
“Prolonged physical association shows consensual relationship”
Background of the Case
The appeal stemmed from a judgment dated July 7, 2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, which had sentenced the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹7,000 for rape and cheating.
The prosecution’s case originated from a complaint by the victim, a co-villager of the accused, alleging that on March 13, 1994, the man entered her room, put a garland on her neck, “convinced her to be his marriage wife,” and allegedly committed rape. The accused later refused to marry her after demanding dowry, prompting the criminal complaint.
Arguments Before the Court
For the Appellant:
Counsel Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee argued that the relationship was voluntary and romantic in nature. He highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies and pointed out that the complainant was an adult, 20 years and 11 months old at the time, fully capable of understanding her actions.
He also emphasized the absence of immediate complaint, medical evidence, and consistency in the victim’s narrative.
For the State:
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, appearing for the State, argued that the accused had taken advantage of the relationship by giving a false promise of marriage and committing sexual acts “against her will.” The State also alleged that the complainant became pregnant and was given herbal medicine to terminate the pregnancy.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Forms Committee to Boost Rare Disease Crowdfunding and Save SMA Patients
Court’s Findings and Observations
1. Victim Was a Major and the Relationship Was Consensual
Justice Biswas noted that the complainant was over 20 years old based on her transfer certificate. The Court found the relationship to be voluntary, affectionate, and consensual, supported by witness testimony and the complainant’s own admission of a “prolonged physical association.”
“Such prolonged physical association between two individuals negates the theory of forcible sexual intercourse,”
observed the Court.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), the judge noted that it is “inconceivable that a complainant would continue such an association in the absence of voluntary consent.”
2. Delay and Conduct Weakened the Prosecution’s Case
The Court found it significant that the complainant did not inform anyone about the alleged rape immediately after the incident. Her silence, combined with continued intimacy over the years, created serious doubt about the allegation of coercion.
3. No Medical or Corroborating Evidence
The High Court criticized the prosecution’s failure to present medical evidence or examine key witnesses, such as Bina Devi, who was alleged to have provided abortion medicine. The abortion claim was deemed unsubstantiated.
4. False Promise vs. Broken Promise of Marriage
The Court relied on precedents like Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) and Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), observing that a broken promise of marriage does not automatically amount to rape.
“Consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love cannot be said to be under a misconception of fact,”
the Court noted.
The dowry demand, the Court added, indicated a later grievance or dispute, not evidence of coercion.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove rape or cheating, the High Court ruled:
“The learned Trial Court committed error and illegality in convicting the accused. The impugned judgment and order of conviction is hereby set aside.”
The appellant, already on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C.
Appearance:
For the Appellant: Advocates Dipanjan Chatterjee, Sankar Paul, Kumari Shipra Roy, Kakan Das
For the State: Advocates Arnab Chatterjee, Rituparna
Case Title:
Mudi Singh Versus The State of West Bengal
C.R.A. 308 of 2000
