A Breach of Promise to Marry Does Not Constitute Rape Unless Intent to Deceive is Proven: Calcutta High Court Acquits Appellant of Rape Charges

On November 5, 2024, the Calcutta High Court in Biswanath Murmu v. State of West Bengal set aside a trial court conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and acquitted Biswanath Murmu of rape charges. The court held that consensual sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage does not amount to rape unless it is proven that the promise was made with a fraudulent intention solely to obtain consent for sexual relations. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay emphasized that mutual consent in adult relationships should not be construed as coercion absent any proof of deceit.

The complainant, PW-1, filed a complaint at Chhatna Police Station alleging that she was in a romantic relationship with the appellant and that they had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse on his promise to marry her. This relationship led to her pregnancy, following which the appellant allegedly retracted his promise and insisted on terminating the pregnancy. PW-1 lodged a complaint during her ninth month of pregnancy after the appellant refused to marry her. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. This conviction was challenged in the High Court.

The primary issue before the Court was whether consensual sexual relations on a promise of marriage, which later ended in refusal, constituted rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court noted that for such cases to qualify as rape, it must be established that the accused made a false promise solely to deceive the complainant into consenting to sexual intercourse. Relying on legal precedents, the Court observed that a breach of a promise to marry, without evidence of malicious intent at the time of the promise, does not satisfy the criteria for rape.

The Court underscored that PW-1, an adult woman, willingly entered into a sexual relationship with the appellant over a prolonged period and was aware of the consequences. The Court referred to the principles in Uday v. State of Karnataka and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, emphasizing that a promise to marry that later goes unfulfilled does not automatically render the sexual relationship non-consensual unless the promise was made with a deliberate intent to deceive.

The Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s rulings in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, which draw a distinction between consensual sexual relationships and those obtained through fraudulent promises. The Court noted, “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. If the accused had no malafide intent and the relationship was mutually consensual, then it does not amount to rape simply because the promise of marriage was not fulfilled.”

The Court observed that the prosecution did not seek a DNA test to establish the appellant's paternity of the child, which could have substantiated the complainant’s allegations. The lack of conclusive evidence on paternity further weakened the prosecution’s case, as it left open the possibility that the appellant was not the father. This oversight contributed to the Court’s conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was fully aware of the nature of their relationship. It was contended that PW-1’s consent was not based on any fraudulent representation by the appellant and that a breach of a marriage promise does not equate to a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC. The Court concurred, holding that mere failure to follow through on a marriage promise does not constitute rape unless it is shown that the promise was made deceitfully to induce consent.

The Court reiterated that adult individuals in consensual relationships are responsible for understanding the potential consequences of their actions. Justice Bandyopadhyay noted, “The victim lady being an adult was aware of the consequences of such relationship and denial on the part of the appellant to marry her would entail wide ramifications.” The Court emphasized that criminalizing breaches of trust in consensual relationships without clear evidence of deceit could lead to unjust convictions.

The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the conviction and acquitting Biswanath Murmu. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant induced consent solely through deception. Consequently, the conviction under Section 376 IPC was set aside, and no costs were imposed.

Date of Decision: November 5, 2024