Court clarifies that a longstanding consensual relationship between adults, accompanied by a promise to marry which is not proved false ab initio, does not amount to rape under Section 376 IPC merely because the marriage did not materialise. Judgment upholds and applies the principles laid down in Uday, Deepak Gulati, Rajnish Singh, and Prashant. This is a binding precedent for subordinate courts in West Bengal and persuasive for others.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/308/2000 of MUDI SINGH Vs STATE |
| CNR | WBCHCA0293412000 |
| Date of Registration | 12-09-2000 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Indian Penal Code, sections 376, 415, 493, 504; CrPC procedures) |
| Questions of Law | Whether consensual physical relationship arising out of a promise to marry amounts to “rape” if the promise was not false ab initio |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when a major, mature woman enters a voluntary physical relationship with a man who later fails to marry her, the sexual act does not amount to rape under Section 376 IPC unless it is shown that the accused made a false promise to marry from the beginning, intending not to fulfill it. The victim’s conduct, prolonged silence, and consensual relationship were inconsistent with allegations of forcible intercourse. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent or that the promise to marry was a device to obtain consent for sex. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments (Uday, Deepak Gulati, Rajnish Singh, Prashant), which laid down that mere non-fulfillment of a promise does not lead to automatic inference of rape; the intention and circumstances must be established. On facts, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The prosecutrix and accused were in a longstanding love relationship. The accused allegedly took her to her bedroom, put a garland around her neck, and declared her his wife, following which sexual intercourse occurred. The relationship continued for several years with frequent meetings and sexual acts. The complaint arose only after the accused allegedly refused to marry her upon non-fulfillment of a monetary demand. There was delay in lodging the complaint, no immediate disclosure, no medical evidence or key corroborating witness for abortion, and inconsistencies in testimonies. The trial court convicted the accused for rape, but the appellate court found the relationship consensual and not a result of deception or force. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Categorically reaffirms that a consensual relationship between adults cannot be termed “rape” simply because the promise of marriage does not materialise, unless the promise is shown to be false at inception.
- Clarifies the distinction between a breach of promise to marry and a false promise to marry made solely with the intention to have sexual intercourse.
- Stresses that prolonged silence, continued association, and absence of complaint by the prosecutrix undermine the prosecution’s case of absence of consent.
- Failure to produce key corroborative witnesses (e.g., on abortion) or medical evidence may be fatal to the prosecution case.
- Defense can rely on inconsistencies and omissions in prosecution testimony to challenge credibility and consent.
- Lawyers may cite this as binding precedent in West Bengal to seek acquittal in similar cases; persuasive elsewhere.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court carefully reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecutrix and the accused were in a longstanding, voluntary romantic relationship, with the prosecutrix being a major at the time of the alleged incidents.
- It noted that the prosecutrix’s conduct—her continued association with the accused for years, absence of immediate complaint or protest, and admission of mutual emotional involvement—was inconsistent with a victim of rape.
- The evidence did not establish that the alleged promise to marry was a false pretext from inception; rather, the facts suggested a genuine, though ultimately failed, relationship.
- The allegations of abortion and dowry were not corroborated by key witnesses or medical evidence, reducing the credibility of the prosecution’s story.
- Applying major Supreme Court precedents (Uday, Deepak Gulati, Rajnish Singh alias Soni, Prashant), the court ruled that consent in a consensual relationship cannot be vitiated merely by later non-fulfillment of a marriage promise; the intention to deceive must exist at the time of giving the promise.
- The trial court was found to have misapplied settled law, and the conviction was reversed.
- The appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Submitted that the prosecution evidence contained major inconsistencies and contradictions, undermining its credibility.
- Emphasised a fundamental inconsistency between the concepts of “rape” (absence of consent) and deception on the promise of marriage (consent obtained by misrepresentation).
- Highlighted the victim’s age and maturity, and the existence of a consensual, prolonged relationship.
- Pointed to the absence of immediate protest, medical evidence, or corroboration.
- Relied on Supreme Court decisions (Prashant, Deepak Gulati, Rajnish Singh, Uday) to argue that breach of promise to marry does not automatically result in a finding of rape.
- Asserted that the theory of rape is absent; relationship was consensual and sustained.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that the impugned judgment was supported by evidence and did not require interference.
- Submitted that accused took advantage of an intimate relationship and established physical relations under a false promise of marriage; when the victim became pregnant, accused arranged for abortion and then refused to marry.
- Asserted that testimony of the prosecutrix was corroborated by other witnesses and points to lack of consent.
- Urged the court to uphold the conviction.
Factual Background
The complainant and the accused, co-villagers, developed a romantic relationship. The accused is alleged to have entered the complainant’s bedroom, garlanded her to signify marriage, and thereafter committed sexual intercourse on a promise to marry her. The sexual relationship continued for several years. The complainant later claimed that the accused demanded money (dowry) to formalise the marriage and, upon not receiving it, refused to marry her. There was no immediate complaint; the FIR was lodged after a lengthy delay. The prosecution alleged rape under Section 376 IPC (and charges under Sections 415 and 493 IPC), while the defense claimed the relationship was consensual.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Sections 376 (rape), 415 (cheating), and 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) IPC.
- Noted the legal distinction between lack of consent (rape) and consent under misconception of fact (where consent is obtained by deceit or misrepresentation, as under a false promise to marry).
- Relied on Supreme Court interpretations establishing that breach of an unfulfilled promise does not constitute misconception of fact unless there is evidence of an intent to deceive from inception.
- Discussed Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act to draw an adverse inference from the prosecution’s failure to produce a crucial witness (Bina Devi regarding abortion).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or present in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed compliance with Section 437A CrPC (corresponding to Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), requiring the appellant to execute bail bonds with sureties for six months even after acquittal, to ensure future availability.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedent on consent and false promise to marry in the context of rape allegations.