corporate law
The Calcutta High Court has made a significant ruling regarding allegations of rape and the implications of consensual relationships, particularly in the context of promises to marry. In the landmark case, Biswanath Murmu vs The State of West Bengal (C.R.A. 562 of 2011), the court examined a situation where an adult woman alleged rape after a consensual relationship with the appellant. The judgment, delivered on November 5, 2024, set aside the conviction of the accused, asserting that an adult woman cannot be considered a victim of the “promise to marry” concept without understanding the implications of such promises.
The case arose from an appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant, who had been previously found guilty of rape based on allegations by the victim. The Single Judge Bench, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, firmly stated that the victim, being an adult, could not have been misled by the appellant's promise of marriage, especially given her awareness of the possible outcomes should the promise be unfulfilled.
Nature of Relationship: The court noted that the victim explicitly admitted to having had a consensual affair with the appellant. She did not resist engaging in a sexual relationship based on the promise of marriage.
Timing of Allegations: It was significant that the victim reported the incident nearly a year later while she was nine months pregnant. The long duration before filing a complaint raised questions about the consensual nature of their relationship.
Understanding the Consequences: The judgment emphasized that the victim, being an adult, should have understood the potential consequences of her actions. Thus, the appellant's refusal to marry her did not constitute rape.
The Single Judge Bench outlined the case in a structured manner:
Initial Complaint: The victim lodged a complaint at Chhatna P.S., detailing her romantic involvement with the appellant, multiple instances of consensual physical intimacy, and her pregnancy.
Charges: Following the investigation, the appellant was charged under Sections 376, 493, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
Court Proceedings: The prosecution presented nine witnesses who provided mixed accounts, raising doubts about the alleged forceful nature of the relationship.
Witness Accounts: Key testimonies included the victim's declaration of being in love with the appellant and the father's acknowledgment of the relationship, which contradicted claims of coercion.
Medical Examination: A medical officer confirmed the birth of the victim's child, leading to questions of paternity that remained unverified.
The court referenced critical case law, emphasizing earlier judgments that distinguish between consensual relationships and incidents of rape. The decision cited several precedents such as:
The judgment in Biswanath Murmu vs The State of West Bengal underscores the critical distinction between consensual sex and non-consensual acts. The Calcutta High Court's pragmatic approach favored the notion that an adult woman is capable of understanding the implications of consensual relationships and the nature of promises made. The ruling ultimately determined that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, resulting in the appellant's acquittal. This case presents a vital precedent in the interpretation of consent and the legal consequences of promises made in intimate relationships. No order regarding costs was issued, and the trial court records were remitted for necessary action per the appellate court's directions.