Consent in Prolonged Romantic Relationship Cannot Be Construed as Rape Merely Due to Breach of Promise to Marry: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man of Rape Charge

Setting aside a 25-year-old conviction for rape and cheating, the Calcutta High Court delivered a significant ruling, emphasizing that a prolonged consensual physical relationship between two adults, even if it ends in disappointment over a failed promise of marriage, cannot by itself constitute rape unless it is shown that the promise was false from the very beginning. Justice Prasenjit Biswas, deciding Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2000, held that the appellant's conviction under Sections 376 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code was legally unsustainable in the absence of proof that consent was obtained under misconception of fact.

The High Court noted that both parties were adults and shared a romantic relationship for nearly two to three years, during which they engaged in repeated sexual intercourse. The complainant’s own admissions, corroborated by independent witnesses and surrounding circumstances, established that the relationship was marked by emotional closeness, mutual affection, and voluntary intimacy. The Court categorically held that the complainant’s consent to sexual acts was not the result of deceit or coercion, but rather a voluntary decision made in the context of an ongoing romantic relationship.

“Mature Adult Woman, Capable of Understanding Her Actions, Cannot Later Claim Rape Due to Failed Marriage”: Court Finds Consent Was Not Induced by Fraud

The complainant alleged that on 13th March 1994, the appellant Mudi Singh came to her residence, exchanged garlands with her claiming it as a form of marriage, and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse. She further claimed that this act was repeated on several occasions, eventually resulting in her pregnancy and subsequent abortion. According to her, the appellant had promised to marry her but refused later, allegedly demanding dowry from her mother, which led to her filing a criminal complaint in 1996.

However, the High Court found serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case. The complainant admitted she was in love with the appellant and that they shared a close emotional relationship. Evidence on record showed that she was above 20 years old at the time of the incident, making her fully capable of making independent decisions about her personal life. Justice Biswas observed:

“The evidence on record reveals circumstances that cast serious doubt upon the veracity of the allegation of rape. The relationship between the victim and the accused was not a one-time incident of forcible sexual assault but rather a prolonged physical and emotional relationship shared between two matured persons.”

The Court referred to the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), where it was held that not every breach of promise to marry amounts to rape. The Apex Court had clarified that a promise to marry must be shown to have been false from the very inception to fall within the ambit of Section 376 IPC.

“Prolonged Silence, Continued Association, and No Immediate Protest Incompatible With Allegation of Rape”: High Court Discredits Delay in Complaint

The High Court expressed strong reservations over the complainant’s inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, as she admitted to having had continued physical relations with the accused even after the alleged first incident. The Court observed that no complaint was made immediately to her family, police, or any other authority. This prolonged silence, coupled with continued association, suggested that the relationship was consensual and not based on any deception.

Justice Biswas remarked:

“The long and unexplained silence of the complainant after the alleged incidents raises serious doubts as to whether the intercourse was truly against her will or whether it took place with her consent in the context of a continuing relationship between the parties.”

Further, the Court noted that there was no medical or documentary proof presented to corroborate the complainant’s claim of pregnancy or abortion. The herbal medicines allegedly procured from a woman named Bina Devi were unsubstantiated, as she was never examined during trial. The Court drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act due to this glaring omission by the prosecution.

“False Promise Must Be Mala Fide From Inception to Constitute Rape”: Conviction Unsustainable Without Such Proof

The Court reiterated the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court between a mere breach of promise and a promise that is false from the inception. Referring to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), the judgment stated that a man’s failure to marry, arising from circumstances beyond his control or due to breakdown in relationship, cannot retroactively render consensual sex into rape.

The Court held:

“In the absence of credible and cogent evidence to the contrary, it cannot be readily inferred that such intimacy was the outcome of a false promise of marriage. When the association between two individuals continues for a prolonged period and reflects emotional involvement and sustained contact, the element of free will and voluntary participation assumes paramount significance.”

It was further held that no material evidence existed to show that the appellant had any malafide intention to deceive the complainant at the beginning of the relationship, and the demand for dowry allegedly made later did not alter the fact that the physical relationship was originally consensual.

Conviction Set Aside; Bail Bonds to be Furnished Under Section 437A CrPC

Allowing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court on 7th July 2000 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1998. The appellant, who had been convicted and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 7000, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376 and 415 IPC.

The Court directed that the appellant be discharged from his existing bail bonds. However, in compliance with Section 437A of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023), he was directed to furnish fresh bail bonds with sureties to remain in force for six months, ensuring his availability in case of any further legal proceedings.

The Court concluded that the conviction suffered from manifest error in appreciation of facts and legal principles and that continuing such conviction would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The judgment serves as an important precedent reaffirming that consensual relationships between adults cannot be criminalized merely on account of failed commitments, unless deception is conclusively proved.

Date of Decision: 31.10.2025