The Calcutta High Court has set aside a conviction under Section 376 IPC, holding that a subsequent marriage between the accused and the victim, coupled with a pre-existing romantic relationship, undermines the prosecution’s claim that consent was obtained by a false promise of marriage at the time of the alleged act. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving deceptive intent at the inception of the act, not merely its aftermath.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mithun Paul, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Krishna Nagar, Nadia, under Section 376 IPC for the rape of a woman aged 18 years on 23.07.2005. The prosecution alleged that the accused lured the victim to his house under the false promise of marriage, forcibly raped her, confined her for nine days, and washed the blood-stained bedsheet to destroy evidence. The victim lodged a complaint on 01.08.2005.
Key Facts
- The victim was 18 years old on 23.07.2005.
- She had a pre-existing romantic relationship with the accused prior to the incident.
- The accused allegedly promised marriage and took her to his house on 23.07.2005 at 5:30 PM.
- She was confined in a locked room for nine days until 01.08.2005, when the accused’s mother expelled her.
- The victim claimed she was raped, suffered bleeding, and the bedsheet was washed by the accused.
- The victim informed local residents including Ananda Ghosh, Apurva Roy, and China Pal about the incident, but none corroborated her account.
- The victim was medically examined on 01.08.2005; the doctor noted her hymen was not intact but could not confirm rape.
- The victim admitted during cross-examination that she married the accused on 08.08.2005 under the Special Marriage Act.
- The couple lived together as husband and wife for two months.
- The victim later filed a criminal case against the accused’s relatives for kidnapping her husband.
- The accused, during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, admitted to the marriage and the romantic relationship.
- No complaint was lodged by the victim’s family during the nine-day confinement.
- The victim admitted she would not have filed the complaint if the accused had continued to live with her as his wife.
Procedural History
- 23.07.2005: Alleged incident of rape.
- 01.08.2005: Victim lodged FIR at Kotwali PS (Case No. 261/2005) under Section 376 IPC.
- 08.08.2005: Marriage between victim and accused solemnized under the Special Marriage Act.
- 01.08.2005: Medical examination conducted by P.W.8.
- 2006: Charge sheet filed and case transferred to Fast Track Court I, Krishna Nagar.
- 29.11.2008: Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000.
- 27.03.2026: Calcutta High Court delivered judgment on appeal.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the victim suppressed the fact of marriage in her complaint and only disclosed it during cross-examination. The relationship was consensual and rooted in love, which soured after the accused allegedly abandoned her. The prosecution failed to prove that the promise of marriage was made with fraudulent intent at the time of the act. The absence of any complaint from family members during the nine-day confinement, the subsequent marriage, and the lack of independent corroboration rendered the victim’s testimony unreliable.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent with the medical evidence. The fact of subsequent marriage did not negate the initial crime. The prosecution relied on the victim’s narrative as sufficient under established jurisprudence that a single witness’s testimony can sustain a conviction if it inspires confidence.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, discharge from the bail bond, and costs. The State sought dismissal of the appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 376 IPC can be invoked when consent to sexual intercourse was obtained by a false promise of marriage, but the parties later married and lived together as husband and wife, and the victim admitted the relationship was consensual and motivated by love?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal and State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal to argue that for a conviction under Section 376 IPC on the ground of false promise of marriage, the prosecution must prove that the promise was made with fraudulent intent at the time of the act. The subsequent marriage and cohabitation for two months negated any claim of deception. The victim’s admission that she filed the complaint only because the accused stopped living with her demonstrated malice, not trauma. The absence of any independent witness or complaint from family members during the nine-day confinement further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish rape under Section 376 IPC, citing State of Haryana v. Raja Ram and State of Rajasthan v. Mohan. It argued that the fact of subsequent marriage does not erase the criminality of the initial act, and that the victim’s delay in filing the complaint was explained by her confinement. The medical evidence of a non-intact hymen, though inconclusive, supported her version.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the victim’s testimony, the medical evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. It emphasized that while the sole testimony of a victim can sustain a conviction under Section 376 IPC, it must inspire confidence and be free from contradictions or suppression of material facts.
"The contents of the written complaint as well as the evidence of the victim herself manifest that such complaint has been lodged out of grievance, as after marriage, the accused did not lead conjugal life with her."
The Court noted that the victim admitted to a pre-existing romantic relationship, that she willingly went to the accused’s house, and that she later married him under the Special Marriage Act. The fact that the couple lived together for two months as husband and wife, and that the victim filed a criminal case against the accused’s relatives for kidnapping her husband, indicated that her motive for filing the complaint was retaliatory, not rooted in trauma.
The Court further held that Section 90 IPC requires proof that consent was obtained under a misconception of fact at the time of the act. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused made a false promise of marriage with fraudulent intent prior to the incident. The subsequent marriage, far from being a cover-up, was a voluntary act that negated any claim of deception.
"There is nothing on record to demonstrate that such a promise was made prior to the alleged act, inducing the victim to visit the accused’s house."
The Court also highlighted the absence of corroboration: P.W.4, P.W.5, and P.W.6 turned hostile; no family member lodged a complaint during the nine-day confinement; and the medical officer could not confirm rape. The delay in lodging the complaint, though explained as confinement, was not substantiated by any independent evidence.
The Court concluded that the trial court erred in ignoring the romantic context, the subsequent marriage, and the victim’s own admissions. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 29.11.2008 were set aside. The appellant was discharged from the bail bond forthwith. No order as to costs was made. The Trial Court Record was directed to be sent down to the concerned court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proven at the Time of Act
- Practitioners must establish that the accused made a false promise of marriage before or at the time of the sexual act, not merely that marriage later occurred.
- Evidence of a pre-existing romantic relationship or subsequent cohabitation will be critical in challenging the prosecution’s claim of deception.
Subsequent Marriage Undermines Prosecution’s Case
- A voluntary marriage after the alleged incident, especially if followed by conjugal life, creates a strong inference that consent was not obtained by fraud.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the marriage was a ruse or coerced, not a genuine resolution.
Corroboration Remains Essential Even in Single-Witness Cases
- While the law permits conviction on the sole testimony of a victim, courts will scrutinize inconsistencies, delays, and suppressed facts.
- Absence of complaints from family members during prolonged confinement, hostile witnesses, and lack of medical confirmation will erode credibility.
Delay in Filing Complaint Must Be Reasonably Explained
- A delay of eight days, even if explained as confinement, requires independent corroboration.
- Unexplained delays, especially when the victim had access to family or authorities, will be viewed skeptically.
Section 90 IPC Requires Specific Intent
- Mere failure to marry after sex does not automatically constitute fraud.
- The prosecution must prove the accused had no intention to marry at the time of the act - not merely that he later changed his mind.
