Prolonged Physical Association; A Case Of Failed Love Affair: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Man In Rape Case
The Calcutta High Court said that the testimonies of witnesses, along with the surrounding circumstances, clearly indicate that the relationship between the parties was voluntary, affectionate, and consensual in nature.
Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in rape case, saying that the case is of a failed love affair.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), by which he was convicted.
A Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas remarked, “The victim stated in her cross-examination that the act of rape continued for 2 to 3 years. Such prolonged physical association between two individuals, without any contemporaneous complaint or disclosure to any authority or family member, negates the theory of forcible sexual intercourse. A relationship of this duration and continuity strongly indicates that the intimacy between the two was voluntary and consensual in nature.”
The Bench said that there is no evidence to show that the accused never intended to marry the Complainant from the beginning; rather the facts suggest that both the parties genuinely desired marriage, but due to certain circumstances, the plan could not be carried through.
Advocate Dipanjan Chatterjee appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while Advocate Arnab Chatterjee appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the Complainant, the Appellant-accused and his parents were her co-villagers and that the accused used to come in her house in almost every date with whom a love affair had grown. Allegedly, the accused gave a proposal of cohabitation to the Complainant but she refused the same. At that time, she was aged about 15 years. In 1994, the accused allegedly came to the house and asked the Complainant to get inside bedroom along with him. It was alleged that in the bedroom, the accused put a garland on the Complainant’s neck and convinced her to be his married wife. It was further alleged that the accused locked the door from inside and asked the Complainant to establish physical relationship with him, to which she refused.
Thereafter, the accused alleged to have forcibly took her to bed and committed rape without her consent. It was also alleged that subsequently, the accused cohabited with the Complainant repeatedly but on asking about marriage, adopted dilatory tactics. Allegedly, the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- as dowry from the Complainant’s mother but on failure to fulfil the same, he refused to marry her. Hence, a Complaint was filed and the FIR was registered. The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 7,000/-. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is stated by P.W.1, the victim, in her evidence that she was born on 02.01.1974. This fact finds corroboration from Exhibit–3, which is the Transfer Certificate issued by Rasakhowa High School, wherein the date of birth of the victim has been recorded as 2nd January, 1974. Therefore, it is clear from the documentary evidence that at the time of the alleged incident, which took place on 13.03.1994, the victim was more than 20 years old. She was, thus, a major and a matured individual, capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her own acts and decisions.”
The Court observed that the testimonies of witnesses, along with the surrounding circumstances, clearly indicate that the relationship between the parties was voluntary, affectionate, and consensual in nature.
“The victim was more than 20 years old at the time of the alleged incident, as established by her date of birth (02.01.1974) in Exhibit–3, the Transfer Certificate. Being a major, she was mature enough to understand the implications and consequences of her acts”, it added.
The Court said that the victim was aged about more than 20 years old at the time of alleged incident and capable of giving valid consent and when a woman of such maturity enters into a sexual relationship with a person with whom she is admittedly in love and such relationship continues or occurs on the promise of marriage at a later date, it cannot automatically be inferred that the consent was obtained by misconception of fact.
“… the complaint’s conduct in continuing to meet and maintain a relationship with the appellant, coupled with her silence and inaction for a prolonged period, renders her allegation of forcible sexual intercourse highly doubtful”, it remarked.
The Court was of the view that the relationship between the accused and the Complainant was consensual and based on mutual affection, and the subsequent non fulfillment of their intention to marry does not transform the consensual acts into a criminal offence.
“The evidence thus does not inspire confidence to hold that the appellant committed rape upon the complainant; rather, it reflects a case of a failed love affair, which unfortunately culminated in allegations driven more by disappointment and emotional distress than by any act of coercion or deceit”, it further said.
The Court reiterated that there may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where the accused on account of the circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so and as such, cases must be treated differently and an accused can be convicted for rape only if the Court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was malafide and that he had clandestine motives.
“In the present case, it clearly emerges from the evidence that the victim had willingly and voluntarily maintained a physical relationship with the accused over a considerable span of time. In the absence of credible and cogent evidence to the contrary, it cannot be readily inferred that such intimacy was the outcome of a false promise of marriage”, it also noted.
Conclusion
The Court enunciated that when the association between two individuals continues for a prolonged period and reflects emotional involvement and sustained contact, the element of free will and voluntary participation assumes paramount significance.
“The very continuity and nature of such a relationship tend to indicate mutual consent rather than coercion, force, or deceit. The victim herself deposed that she had requested the accused to marry her in a socially recognized manner, and in response, the accused assured her that he would do so in the following month. This statement, when read in its natural context, conveys that the relationship between them was consensual and founded upon mutual understanding, nurtured over time”, it added.
Moreover, the Court observed that the victim was aged above twenty years, fully conscious and aware of the implications of her conduct and her continued participation in the relationship appears to have been a voluntary act inspired by personal affection and the expectation of eventual marriage, which, unfortunately, did not materialize.
“… such disappointment or breach of expectation, by itself, cannot be construed to mean that the accused had committed the offence of rape, in the absence of any material to establish that the promise of marriage was made deceitfully or with mala fide intent from the inception. … In view of the above circumstances and discussion I find that the learned Trial Court committed error and illegality in convicting the accused in connection with this case. As such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction do not stand under the eye of law and is liable to be set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction.
Cause Title- Mudi Singh v. The State of West Bengal (Case Number: C.R.A. 308 of 2000)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Dipanjan Chatterjee, Sankar Paul, Kumari Shipra Roy, and Kakan Das.
Respondent: Advocates Arnab Chatterjee and Rituparna Saha.
