In a landmark judgment addressing the complexities of consent and promises of marriage in intimate relationships, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that a broken promise of marriage does not constitute rape when the relationship was consensual. Overturning a previous conviction, the court clarified that consensual relationships rooted in mutual affection and adult decision-making cannot be equated with coercion or fraud simply due to an unfulfilled promise to marry. This decision reinforces the principle that consent, even if influenced by future intentions like marriage, remains valid unless there is clear evidence of deception intended solely to exploit the partner.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint in which the victim alleged that she had entered a physical relationship with the accused on the basis of a promise of marriage. According to her complaint, the two were romantically involved and had eloped, entering into a sexual relationship under the assurance of future marriage, which later resulted in the victim’s pregnancy. When the accused refused to marry her and allegedly urged her to terminate the pregnancy, she filed a complaint, resulting in charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as charges of deceit under Sections 417 and 493.
Initially, a lower court found the accused guilty of rape, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, asserting that his failure to fulfill the marriage promise invalidated the victim’s consent. This judgment was later appealed in the High Court.
Legal Issues Addressed
The High Court examined several important legal questions:
1. Nature of Consent Based on Marriage Promise: Whether consent given under a promise of marriage could be deemed involuntary if the promise was later broken.
2. Misconception of Fact: The court examined whether the victim’s consent could be voided due to a “misconception of fact,” defined in Indian law as consent obtained under false pretenses or fraudulent promises.
3. Evidentiary Concerns: The court considered the prosecution’s failure to conduct a DNA test to establish the paternity of the child, which could have substantiated the victim’s claims.
Arguments by Counsel
For the Appellant: The defense argued that the relationship was consensual, with the victim herself admitting to having no objection to physical intimacy. They contended that an unfulfilled promise of marriage does not inherently vitiate consent unless it was proven that the promise was made solely to deceive. Citing legal precedents, the defense argued that consensual relationships do not equate to rape merely because a marriage promise was not fulfilled.
For the State: The prosecution argued that the victim’s consent was obtained under false pretenses and that the accused’s refusal to marry her, despite knowing she was pregnant, indicated an intent to deceive.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay delivered the judgment, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of consent in consensual relationships. Quoting relevant Supreme Court rulings, Justice Bandyopadhyay observed:
“The victim, being an adult, willingly engaged in the relationship, cognizant of the potential consequences. The promise of marriage, while regrettably broken, does not invalidate consent unless clear intent to deceive from the beginning is proven.”
The judgment underscored that a consensual relationship entered by two adults does not automatically become non-consensual solely because one party fails to fulfill a marriage promise. The court noted that the evidence indicated mutual affection and willingness to engage in a physical relationship, without evidence of coercion or fraudulent intent from the start.
Justice Bandyopadhyay referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, which held that consent given in a romantic relationship does not constitute a “misconception of fact” if the intent to marry was genuine at the time, even if unfulfilled later. The absence of a DNA test to establish paternity further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it could have provided concrete evidence to support the victim’s claims.
The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial conviction. The court observed that unsubstantiated allegations based on unfulfilled promises do not meet the threshold for a rape conviction.
