Calcutta High Court Clarifies: Broken Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Constitute Rape
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that a consensual sexual relationship turning acrimonious does not amount to rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage. The court on Monday quashed a criminal case against a man accused of raping a woman after promising to marry her but later backing out, and allegedly forcing her to undergo an abortion.
Court Emphasizes Mutual Consent Over Deception
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that the two individuals voluntarily travelled together, stayed together, and conducted themselves in a manner "akin to husband and wife," which strongly indicated mutual consent rather than deception. The judge stated that a man cannot be convicted of rape simply because a consensual sexual relationship turned bitter.
Justice Chatterjee clarified: For consent to be considered as given under a "misconception of fact"—in this instance, the promise of marriage—the deception must have been present from the very inception of a long-standing relationship. "There must have been a fraudulent... intention at the very inception and that she was induced to enter the sexual relationship," the judge held.
Detailed Background of the Case
The woman entered into a relationship with the accused in 2017. She alleged that in 2018, he forced her to drink and then raped her, but she remained silent because he promised marriage. Subsequently, they went on trips to Digha and Goa. In 2020, she became pregnant and underwent an abortion; medical reports presented to the High Court showed the procedure was done with her consent, with the accused signing as her guardian. The woman claimed she agreed to the abortion due to the marriage promise.
After the man refused to marry her, she lodged a complaint with Salboni police station in West Midnapore on February 16, 2022. The accused was arrested on February 23, and a charge sheet was filed against him on July 21 under IPC sections for rape, cheating, causing miscarriage without a woman's consent, and criminal intimidation.
Court's Analysis and Decision
Justice Chatterjee noted: "The romantic relationship... started in 2017 and continued until the relationship turned sour in 2022. During the... relationship, they indulged in sexual activity, spent nights together at various hotels in Digha, Park Street, Kharag, and Goa, and lived like husband and wife. It is also admitted she became pregnant and the pregnancy was terminated with the consent of the victim as well as the accused... Instead of lodging any complaint against the accused, she continued the relationship… So, as of now, nothing suggests that at any point of time she was under a misconception for the last 5 or 6 years."
The counsel for the accused argued that the woman was an educated adult who voluntarily entered into a physical relationship while "being aware of the consequences." The court ultimately quashed the case, ruling that the evidence pointed to mutual consent and companionship, not inducement by deception.
