Introduction:
In a significant judgment concerning the distinction between consensual relationships and offences under rape law, the Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that a long-standing romantic relationship followed by marriage and continued cohabitation could not subsequently be treated as rape merely because the accused allegedly failed to perform a formal social marriage ceremony.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha in the case titled Sri Sukanta Murasing v. The State of Tripura, Criminal Appeal (J) No. 16 of 2025, decided on May 13, 2026. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredient of absence of consent required under Section 375 IPC.
The case arose from allegations made by the complainant that the accused had established physical relations with her in 2017 on the promise of marriage and later refused to conduct a public or social marriage ceremony despite repeated assurances. According to the prosecution, the complainant first came into contact with the accused in 2013, and over time the two developed a relationship. It was alleged that in September 2017, the accused forcibly established physical relations with her after promising that he would marry her.
The prosecution further stated that the parties later solemnized their marriage on January 22, 2018. Subsequently, on January 31, 2018, they executed a notarized joint declaration acknowledging their marital relationship. However, the complainant later alleged that despite these developments, the accused failed to conduct a customary social marriage ceremony and eventually refused to publicly acknowledge the marriage.
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 376, 417, 420, and 34 of the IPC. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376(1) IPC. He was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
Challenging the conviction before the High Court, the appellant contended that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual and that the complainant herself had admitted during trial that their marriage continued to subsist. The appellant argued that the prosecution had attempted to convert a failed or disputed romantic relationship into a criminal prosecution for rape despite clear evidence of consent and cohabitation.
The appeal therefore required the High Court to examine an increasingly litigated issue under criminal law — whether consensual physical relations arising out of a love affair or marital understanding can later be retrospectively characterized as rape solely because the relationship deteriorates or expectations relating to marriage are not fulfilled in the desired manner.
The judgment assumes importance in the broader legal context surrounding allegations of rape based on promises of marriage. Over the years, courts across India have repeatedly distinguished between false promises made solely to obtain consent and genuine relationships that subsequently fail due to personal or social circumstances. The present case added another layer to this jurisprudence because the parties had not only maintained a long-standing relationship but had also admittedly executed a notarized declaration acknowledging marriage.
The High Court’s ruling therefore became an important reaffirmation of the principle that criminal law relating to rape cannot be invoked in situations where evidence clearly establishes voluntary participation, emotional involvement, and conscious continuation of the relationship by both parties.
Arguments of the Parties:
Before the High Court, the appellant strongly challenged the findings of the trial court and argued that the conviction under Section 376 IPC was legally unsustainable in light of the evidence available on record. The appellant contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual from the very beginning and was rooted in a long-standing love affair that existed for several years prior to the filing of the complaint.
The appellant submitted that the complainant herself had admitted during the course of investigation and trial that the parties were romantically involved and had voluntarily maintained physical relations. It was argued that the evidence clearly showed emotional attachment, continuous interaction, and consensual cohabitation between the parties over an extended period of time.
One of the principal arguments advanced by the appellant was that the complainant had expressly acknowledged the existence of marriage between them. According to the defence, the parties had solemnized their marriage on January 22, 2018, and subsequently executed a notarized declaration on January 31, 2018 affirming their marital status. The appellant pointed out that during trial the complainant admitted that the marriage still subsisted.
The appellant therefore argued that once the complainant herself accepted the existence and continuation of marriage, the allegation that the physical relationship amounted to rape became inherently contradictory and legally untenable. It was contended that a consensual marital relationship cannot subsequently be transformed into a criminal allegation merely because disputes arose regarding social recognition of the marriage.
The defence further submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential element of lack of consent required under Section 375 IPC. According to the appellant, the complainant was a consenting adult who voluntarily continued the relationship for several years and consciously participated in the physical relationship with full understanding of its consequences.
The appellant also emphasized the delay in lodging the FIR and argued that the unexplained delay cast serious doubt upon the prosecution’s version. It was submitted that despite the alleged incident having occurred in 2017, the complainant continued to maintain the relationship, married the appellant, and cohabited with him thereafter. The defence argued that such conduct was wholly inconsistent with allegations of forcible sexual assault.
Another important submission made by the appellant concerned the medical evidence produced before the trial court. According to the defence, the medical findings did not support the allegation of rape or forcible intercourse. The appellant argued that the prosecution relied primarily upon allegations arising out of a relationship dispute rather than evidence establishing criminal sexual assault.
The State, on the other hand, supported the conviction recorded by the trial court and argued that the accused had induced the complainant into physical relations on the basis of a promise of marriage which was ultimately not fulfilled in the expected social and customary manner.
The prosecution maintained that the complainant initially consented to the physical relationship because she believed the accused would formally marry her and publicly acknowledge the relationship before society. According to the prosecution, the accused subsequently reneged on these assurances, thereby causing emotional and social injury to the complainant.
The State relied upon the complainant’s allegations that despite repeated assurances regarding a social marriage ceremony, the accused later refused to conduct such a ceremony publicly. It was argued that this conduct demonstrated deception and exploitation.
The prosecution also sought to emphasize the emotional vulnerability of the complainant and argued that consent obtained through assurances of marriage may lose its legal validity where the promise was not genuinely intended to be fulfilled.
However, during the course of hearing, the High Court closely examined the complainant’s own statements recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC as well as her deposition before the trial court. The Bench noted that the complainant had consistently admitted the existence of a love relationship between herself and the appellant.
The complainant had also stated that the accused married her by applying blood on her forehead, following which she frequently visited his house and continued the relationship voluntarily. These statements became crucial because they reflected emotional participation and conscious continuation of the relationship rather than absence of consent.
The Court further considered the complainant’s acknowledgment regarding the notarized declaration executed by both parties affirming their marriage. The continued subsistence of the marital relationship also weighed heavily with the Court while assessing whether the offence of rape had been established.
Thus, the central issue before the High Court became whether a consensual romantic and marital relationship could legally constitute rape in the absence of evidence showing coercion, deception amounting to false promise from inception, or absence of voluntary participation.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the evidence and rival submissions, the Tripura High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. The Division Bench held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction for rape.
At the outset, the Court carefully analyzed the complainant’s own statements recorded during investigation and trial. The Bench observed that the complainant had consistently admitted that she and the appellant were involved in a romantic relationship for several years. The Court noted that her statement under Section 164(5) CrPC clearly reflected that the physical relationship between the parties arose out of mutual affection and emotional attachment rather than force or coercion.
The Court observed that the complainant herself had acknowledged that the appellant married her by applying blood on her forehead and that she frequently visited his residence thereafter. According to the Bench, these circumstances strongly indicated the existence of a consensual relationship and voluntary cohabitation between the parties.
The High Court attached considerable importance to the notarized joint declaration executed by the parties after their marriage. The Bench noted that the complainant admitted during trial that the marriage between her and the appellant still subsisted. This admission, according to the Court, substantially weakened the prosecution’s allegation that the relationship was founded solely upon deception or false inducement.
The Division Bench categorically held that the evidence on record established a “love bondage/relation” between the parties rather than an offence of rape. The Court observed that the complainant voluntarily continued the relationship despite fully understanding its nature and consequences.
Referring to Section 375 IPC, the Court reiterated that absence of consent constitutes the foundational ingredient of the offence of rape. Unless the prosecution establishes that consent was absent, involuntary, or obtained through legally recognized vitiating circumstances, criminal liability under Section 376 IPC cannot arise.
The Bench found that no material on record demonstrated forcible sexual intercourse or lack of consent. Instead, the evidence consistently reflected emotional involvement, consensual intimacy, and continuation of the relationship over a prolonged period.
The Court also considered the legal distinction between a false promise of marriage and a genuine relationship that subsequently deteriorates. Although the judgment did not extensively discuss precedents, its reasoning aligned with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that consensual physical relations arising from genuine romantic relationships cannot automatically be criminalized merely because marriage does not ultimately occur or social expectations remain unfulfilled.
The High Court implicitly recognized that criminal law cannot be used to penalize every failed relationship or emotional dispute between consenting adults. The Court emphasized that where parties consciously enter into a relationship and continue it voluntarily over time, the breakdown of such a relationship cannot retrospectively convert consensual intimacy into rape.
The Bench also found significance in the fact that the marriage between the parties continued to subsist. According to the Court, the complainant’s acknowledgment regarding subsisting marriage further reinforced the consensual nature of the relationship.
Another important factor considered by the Court was the medical evidence. The Bench observed that the medical findings did not support allegations of forcible intercourse or sexual assault. While absence of injuries alone may not disprove rape in every case, the Court held that in the present factual matrix the medical evidence failed to corroborate the prosecution’s allegations.
The High Court further noted the delay in lodging the FIR and the conduct of the complainant after the alleged incident. The Bench observed that despite alleging forcible relations in 2017, the complainant continued the relationship, solemnized marriage, executed a notarized declaration, and cohabited with the appellant thereafter. Such conduct, according to the Court, was inconsistent with allegations of rape arising from absence of consent.
Importantly, the judgment reflects judicial caution against misuse or overextension of rape provisions in cases involving consensual adult relationships. The Court recognized the seriousness of the offence under Section 376 IPC and implicitly emphasized that criminal prosecution for rape requires strict proof of non-consensual sexual conduct rather than mere dissatisfaction arising out of relationship disputes.
The Bench ultimately concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since the foundational requirement of absence of consent remained unproved, the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court, allowed the criminal appeal, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 376 IPC.
The judgment therefore reinforces an important principle within criminal jurisprudence — that consensual relationships between adults, even if emotionally complex or socially disputed, cannot automatically attract criminal liability for rape in the absence of clear evidence establishing coercion, fraud from inception, or absence of voluntary consent.
At the same time, the ruling also reflects the judiciary’s continuing effort to carefully distinguish between genuine cases of sexual exploitation under false promises and consensual relationships that later break down due to personal disagreements or social complications. The decision thus contributes to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding consent, autonomy, and misuse of criminal law in relationship-based disputes.