Consensual Relationship Within Marriage Can’t Be Treated As Rape: Tripura High Court Acquits Man

The accused appellant approached the High Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in a case registered under 376(1) of the IPC.

The Division Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held, “Further, from the deposition of witnesses and also from the statement of the complainant, commission of rape cannot be established, rather a love bondage/relation between the appellant and the complainant has been well established. Further, the complainant-victim had admitted that there was marriage between her which was followed by notarized declaration and the said marriage is still in subsistence. Moreover, the medical evidence also does not support the commission of rape. It is trite law that consensual relationship within marriage cannot be treated as rape and, hence the case in hand cannot come under the purview of Section 375 IPC.”

“Thus, it can be assumed that the complainant victim consented to such sexual intercourse with the appellant voluntarily. Now, the complainant-victim who consented for sexual intercourse, knowing the consequence, cannot plead she was raped”, it added.

Advocate K. Nath represented the Appellant, while Public Prosecutor Raju Datta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant-victim lodged a written complaint alleging that during the year 2013, the complainant-victim became acquainted with the appellant and upon such acquaintance, the appellant, upon proposal of love, brought her to his house, wherein he committed rape upon her against her will. It was further alleged that the appellant promised to marry her and, accordingly, their marriage was solemnized. In the written complaint, it was further alleged that after the marriage, the appellant left the complainant-victim in her paternal residence with an assurance that he would marry her socially and would take her to his residence after informing his parents.

It was further alleged that by virtue of that, both the appellant and the complainant-victim started to visit each other’s house frequently, and started to live as husband and wife. It was alleged that, taking advantage of the recognition of their social marriage, the appellant got involved in a physical relationship with the complainant-victim. It was also alleged that later the appellant refused to marry her. The accused thus came to be arrested, and a charge was framed against him under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the allegations and the written complaint, the Bench noted that the statement of the complainant-victim before the Court also demonstrated amply that there was a love affair between the complainant and the appellant and whatever physical relation took place between them was absolutely consensual in nature since there was no protest or obstruction or complaint on the part of the complainant at the very initial stage.

The Bench noted that the complainant had stated that the appellant had committed rape upon her in last part of September, 2017, against her will, but nowhere in the record, it was found that she made any complaint to anyone or before the police regarding such conduct of the appellant and on the contrary, continued her sexual relationship with the appellant, on the assurance of marriage extended by the appellant. “Thus, it can safely be presumed that the appellant has not cheated the complainant at any point of time on the contrary the same was a result of consent by the complainant-victim”, it added.

According to the Bench, the complainant was in love with the appellant, and subsequently, there was a physical relationship between them, resulting in her becoming pregnant, but she had undergone an abortion by consuming medicine. It was further noticed that the said facts had been admitted by the complainant during trial. “The complainant-victim was mature enough to understand the consequence, but she did not resist the appellant or herself at any point of time or did not raise any alarm”, the order read.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the appellant of the charge for which he was tried. “Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be set free from incarceration, if not required in any other case”, it ordered.

Cause Title: A V. The State of Tripura (Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:618-DB)

Click here to read/download Order