The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for raping a woman under the false promise of marriage, ruling that such consent obtained through deception does not amount to valid consent under the law.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee, dismissing the appeal against a 2014 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad, reaffirmed the trial court’s order sentencing the appellant to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case originated from a complaint filed on January 1, 2006, wherein the woman alleged that the accused had cohabited with her on the false assurance that he would marry her. She became pregnant, and when she and her family approached the man for marriage, he refused.
Investigations revealed that the accused was already married to another woman. An FIR was lodged at Burwan Police Station under Section 376 IPC.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant was an adult, aged around 20–21 years at the relevant time, and had voluntarily entered into the sexual relationship. It was further contended that she was aware of the appellant’s marital status and that there was no evidence of coercion.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the accused never intended to marry the woman and only used the false promise to gratify his lust. The complainant was misled into believing the promise, which ultimately amounted to rape as defined in law.
Rejecting the plea for acquittal, Justice Chatterjee held that there was no merit in the appeal. The Court observed:
“The intention of the accused right from the beginning was not bona fide, and the poor girl submitted to the lust of the accused, completely being misled by the accused who made the promise of marriage if she gave him a child.”
The Court further remarked:
“This kind of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuading the girl to believe that he is going to marry her and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception and hence cannot be treated to be a consent.”
Upholding the conviction and sentence, the Court concluded that:
“The appellant must face the consequences of his misdeed for the egregious offence committed with the lady with a mala fide intention from the beginning.”
The judgment reinforces the principle that consent obtained through deceit, particularly when it concerns a false promise of marriage, is not legally valid for sexual intercourse under Section 376 IPC.
