HC on Sex After Marriage Promise: Can't Charge Man With Rape for Consensual Sex After He Refuses To Marry, Says Calcutta High Court

Kolkata, November 12: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed rape charges against a man after 13 years, stating that a woman's claim of rape following consensual sex with a man who later broke a marriage promise lacks sufficient evidence. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay ruled that mere assertions, without proper proof, cannot lead to an indictment in cases involving consenting parties.

The court emphasised that the victim's claim of being impregnated by the accused was not enough to establish rape in the absence of clear evidence. The bench also pointed out that the complainant had clearly admitted to engaging in a physical relationship with the man "willingly and without resistance," before accusing him of rape when he allegedly reneged on their marriage promise, as reported by Times Of India. Calcutta High Court Judge Chitta Ranjan Dash Admits He's RSS Member in Farewell Speech, Says 'Organisation Shaped My Personality'.

About The Case 

On July 12, 2011, the additional sessions judge at Bankura sentenced the man to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The man appealed to the Calcutta High Court in the same year, which granted him bail. The woman, then 21, had filed a complaint at Chhatna police station while nine months pregnant, alleging that the man had engaged in sexual relations with her under the promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. She claimed that he pressured her to abort and later refused to marry her, ultimately abandoning her after she became pregnant. She later gave birth to a daughter. Child Care Leave Should Be Given to Both Male and Female Government Employees, Says Calcutta High Court.

Ruling by Justice Bandyopadhyay

In dismissing the case, Justice Bandyopadhyay stated, “The victim, being an adult, could not have been deceived by the ‘promise to marry’ without considering the potential consequences if the promise was not fulfilled.” The court also highlighted that the prosecution had failed to establish the paternity of the child, which undermined the case further. The defence argued that the woman had clearly stated in both her complaint and testimony that she had consented to the physical relationship. The defence contended that the act could not be considered “rape,” as consent was given based on a promise for a future, uncertain event, not by fraud.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Nov 12, 2024 12:43 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).