Introduction:

In a notable ruling, the Calcutta High Court overturned a conviction for rape, asserting that when an adult woman consents to a physical relationship knowingly and willingly, understanding the risks and consequences, a man cannot later be held liable for rape merely because he ultimately does not fulfil a promise to marry. This judgment, passed by Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay, arose in an appeal brought by Biswanath Murmu against his prior conviction and sentencing for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which had subjected him to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine. This case focuses on the crucial legal distinction between consensual relations and rape based on broken promises, as well as the concept of “misconception of fact” under Indian law, reinforcing the need for consent to be free from any coercion or deceit.

Background of the Case:

The case began when the victim, romantically involved with the appellant, filed a complaint alleging that he had promised to marry her, leading them to engage in a physical relationship multiple times. The victim later became pregnant, and upon informing the appellant, he allegedly refused to marry her and insisted on abortion. Nine months into her pregnancy, she complained to him. The appellant was subsequently convicted of rape and sentenced to imprisonment. However, he appealed against this decision, arguing that their relationship was consensual, and thus, no offence under Section 376 IPC could apply.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant’s counsel presented several key arguments:

1. Consent to Physical Relationship: The appellant argued that the victim willingly participated in the physical relationship and was fully aware of its implications. Both the complaint and the victim’s testimony indicated that she did not object to the intimacy, which, according to the appellant, clearly showed consent, and therefore, the relationship could not be classified as rape.
2. Absence of Deception or Coercion: It was argued that the appellant had not coerced the victim into intimacy through any fraudulent claims. Instead, the victim engaged willingly in the relationship based on mutual affection. He maintained that the “promise of marriage” was more of a hope for future commitment than a deceitful misrepresentation.
3. Misinterpretation of “Misconception of Fact”: The counsel submitted that the promise of marriage alone does not constitute a “misconception of fact” under Indian law, especially when the victim consents knowingly. The appellant relied on established interpretations of “misconception of fact,” arguing that it applies only when one party is genuinely deceived about the nature of the act itself, not the potential future outcome of a relationship.
4. Inadmissible Testimonies: It was noted that the victim had shared her romantic involvement with her friend, Makali Soren. However, Soren was not called upon as a witness, which weakened the prosecution’s claim of a non-consensual relationship. The appellant contended that the victim’s uncorroborated claims of broken promises should not have formed the sole basis for conviction.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution argued on behalf of the victim, presenting the following points:

1. The Promise of Marriage as Inducement: The prosecution maintained that the appellant used a promise of marriage to secure the victim’s consent, which he later failed to fulfil. They argued that this assurance of marriage served as the primary reason for the victim’s consent, making her consent conditional upon marriage and therefore not free or independent.
2. Misconception of Fact under Section 90 IPC: The prosecution asserted that the victim’s consent was invalidated under Section 90 of the IPC due to her reliance on a promise that was never intended to be kept. They argued that Section 375 IPC, defining rape, should apply in cases where consent is obtained under pretences. In this case, they claimed the promise of marriage misled the victim into consenting to physical relations, which she otherwise might have avoided.
3. Irreparable Harm to the Victim: With the victim pregnant and left without the support or commitment promised, the prosecution argued that the appellant should be held accountable for breaching her trust and causing emotional and social harm. They contended that abandoning the victim after impregnating her, particularly in a rural society with conservative values, placed an undue burden on her and her family.

The Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay analyzed the arguments and legal precedents before delivering a judgment. The court’s observations and final judgment are summarized below:

1. Consensual Relationship Between Adults: The court noted that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, as per the evidence and testimonies presented. Given that the victim was an adult, she was fully aware of the implications of engaging in such a relationship. Justice Bandopadhyay emphasized that adults consenting to a physical relationship do so understanding its potential consequences, and it would be unreasonable to hold the appellant accountable for not fulfilling a future commitment that may be subject to change.
2. Applicability of “Misconception of Fact”: The court highlighted that a “misconception of fact” under Section 90 IPC cannot be assumed based on a conditional promise that fails to materialize. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, the court reiterated that a promise of marriage made during a consensual relationship cannot automatically translate into an offence of rape if that promise remains unfulfilled. Justice Bandopadhyay observed that both the appellant and the victim appeared to have engaged in the relationship out of mutual affection and attraction, with the possibility of marriage being more of a hopeful outcome than a binding guarantee.
3. Precedent from Supreme Court: The court cited the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court ruled that when two individuals in a loving relationship engage in intimacy with a future hope of marriage, the consent given in such circumstances is genuine. In such cases, the court found, the promise of marriage cannot be construed as a deliberate falsehood unless there is direct evidence of fraudulent intent at the outset.
4. No Evidence of Coercion or Fraud: The court examined the details and noted that the appellant did not coerce the victim or employ any deceptive practices to secure her consent. The relationship evolved naturally, and the victim willingly entered into the relationship. The court underscored that merely a change of heart regarding marriage does not amount to “rape by fraud,” as the concept of fraud would necessitate a deliberate misrepresentation to obtain consent.
5. Right to Withdraw from Personal Relationships: Justice Bandopadhyay observed that consenting adults in romantic relationships may have their circumstances and feelings change over time. Legally penalizing individuals for not fulfilling an intent to marry, particularly when both parties engaged in intimacy of their own volition, would amount to an unfair restriction on personal relationships.
6. Dismissal of the Appeal for Lack of Merit: Finally, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, dismissing the rape charges and vacating the prior sentence of imprisonment and fine. The court held that holding the appellant liable under Section 376 IPC would constitute an unfair legal extension of the concept of rape, especially given the absence of coercion or fraudulent misrepresentation.