Consensual Relationship with Promise to Marry Does Not Amount to Rape—When Victim Is

Major and Aware, False Hope Is Not Deception: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused After 37 Years 
 Consent Given by a Woman Aware of Consequences Is Still Consent—Promise to Marry Does Not 
Convert Romance Into Rape - Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, delivered nearly four decades ago, by holding that the alleged victim was a consenting adult, and her consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact, even if the appellant had later refused to marry her. 
 Justice Prasenjit Biswas emphasized that:  “It is not a case where the girl had any misconception about the nature of the act which she consented. That being so, it does not become a case of rape when she consented to the act of sexual intercourse fully knowing the nature and implication of such act.” 
  “No Evidence of Force, No Proof of Age Below 16—When the Woman Is Major, Her Consent Is Her Own” 
 The High Court discredited the prosecution’s claim that the woman was a minor at the time of the incident. The ossification test (PW6) placed her age at approximately 25 years on 07.02.1986, and no birth certificate or documentary proof was produced. The parents (PW2 and PW3) failed to even state her birth date. 
 Justice Biswas held: “In absence of documentary proof and in light of the medical report, the victim was clearly above 18. Section 375 'sixthly' does not apply. She was mature and capable of consenting.” 
Love Affair Is Not Rape—Repeated Acts of Intercourse Based on Mutual Affection Cannot Be Later Criminalized” 

The prosecutrix admitted to having sexual intercourse on 11–12 occasions, initially resisting but eventually consenting on a promise of marriage. Yet, the Court found no specific evidence of coercion, date of first incident, or contemporaneous complaint. 
 The Court observed:  “The prosecutrix continued without any protest… She gave consent fully understanding the nature and implication of such act. Her later grievance that the promise of marriage was broken does not convert it into rape.” 
  “Delay in Complaint, Contradictory Testimony, Unreliable Witnesses—Conviction Was Built on Shaky Foundation” 
 The FIR was lodged only after five months of pregnancy, and the prosecutrix did not disclose the relationship to anyone during that period. She claimed to have informed others, but none of them were examined in trial. The Court noted significant contradictions between her court testimony and Section 161 CrPC statement, and found her version not credible. 
 Justice Biswas emphasized: 
“The prosecutrix has prevaricated at every stage… Her deposition stands contradicted materially. Her evidence, unsupported and unreliable, cannot form the basis of conviction.” 
 “Consent Based on Hope of Marriage Is Still Consent—Unless Deception Is Proved to Be Intentional at Inception” 
 The Court held that even if the promise to marry was not kept, unless it was shown to be false from the beginning, the consent remains valid under law. 
 Citing settled legal position, the Court ruled:  “If she gives consent even on an assumption of marriage, she is deemed to be a consenting party. 
The relationship remained voluntary and long-standing. It cannot be criminalized retroactively.” 
 Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 26.09.1988, observing that the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The appellant, who was already on bail, was acquitted, and his sureties discharged. 
 Justice Biswas concluded: “The ingredients of Section 375 IPC not having been satisfied, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in law. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence are set aside.” 
 This case stands as a landmark reaffirmation that consensual relationships between adults—even those based on broken promises—do not ipso facto amount to rape, unless there is clear evidence of coercion or fraudulent intent at the inception. The Calcutta High Court has emphasized that criminal law must not become a tool to moralize personal choices, especially when such choices are informed, voluntary, and sustained over time. 
 As the Court poignantly concluded:  “Romance may fail, but failure to marry is not proof of crime—law must protect consent, not police heartbreaks.” 
 
Date of Decision: 25 March 2025