An adult woman cannot be seen as a victim of the promise to marry, according to the Calcutta High Court, which has cleared the rape accused.
The Calcutta High Court overturned the conviction of a man accused of rape, stating that the adult victim could not have been misled by a promise of marriage. The court was reviewing an appeal against the conviction of a man who was found guilty of raping a woman under false pretenses of marriage. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay noted, “As an adult, the victim should have been aware of the potential outcomes if the promise of marriage was not fulfilled.” The High Court was examining an appeal against a ruling from the Additional Sessions Judge, who had sentenced the man to seven years in prison and a fine of Rs. 1000 for violating Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution’s case stated that the victim filed a complaint claiming she and the accused had a romantic relationship and had run away together. The accused promised to marry her, and they engaged in sexual relations multiple times at her home while her parents were away. After the victim became pregnant, the accused pressured her to have an abortion and refused to marry her. She filed the complaint when she was nine months pregnant. The defense argued that believing in the promise of marriage was not a misunderstanding. They claimed that consent was given based on a future promise, which did not meet the legal definition of rape. The defense also asserted that the complaint did not indicate that the victim’s consent was based on false promises solely for sexual gratification, making the accusations against the accused unfounded.
The victim girl testified that she was left alone after becoming pregnant. She gave birth to a girl, and her father stated that she had a romantic relationship with the appellant, who promised to marry her but then assaulted her. The court believed that the victim, being an adult, admitted to having an affair with the appellant and did not resist the sexual relationship based on his promise of marriage. Over time, this relationship led to her pregnancy, but when she revealed this, the appellant refused to marry her and suggested she terminate the pregnancy. The court also noted that the victim filed a complaint nearly a year later, when she was nine months pregnant, indicating that the relationship was clearly consensual. The victim, being an adult, understood the potential consequences of their relationship, and the appellant’s refusal to marry her would have significant implications.
In this case, the victim clearly stated that she willingly engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant, reinforcing her consent. The court remarked that simply claiming to be pregnant by the appellant without solid evidence in a consensual relationship cannot hold someone accountable. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Biswanath Murmu V. The State of West Bengal [Case no.- C.R.A. 562 of 2011]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Malay Bhattacharya & Sudipa Sengupta
State: Advocates Rudradipta Nandy & Iqbal Kabir
