Rape - Sexual intercourse with a person with whom she was deeply in love, on a promise of marriage : No misconception

Calcutta High Court Overturns Conviction of Mudi Singh in Rape Case. Court Finds No Evidence of Coercion; Relationship Deemed Consensual

In a landmark judgment, the Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction of Mudi Singh, who was previously sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fined Rs. 7,000 on charges of rape and cheating under Sections 376 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment, delivered by Justice Prasenjit Biswas, found that the relationship between Singh and the complainant was consensual and affectionate, negating the theory of forcible sexual assault.

The case revolved around allegations that Singh had engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, which later did not materialize. The complainant, who was 15 years old at the time of the incident, claimed that Singh had raped her and subsequently refused to marry her without a dowry payment of Rs. 10,000.

Justice Biswas meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the seven witnesses. The court noted that the complainant was a major, capable of understanding her actions, and there was a long-term association between the parties. The judgment emphasized that for a claim of rape under a false promise of marriage to stand, it must be shown that the promise was false from the inception and made with malicious intent to deceive.

The court highlighted that the complainant did not raise any immediate protest or complaint after the alleged incidents, which continued over a span of years. This prolonged silence and continued association with Singh were deemed inconsistent with the conduct expected of a person who has been subjected to forcible sexual assault.

The judgment further referenced authoritative pronouncements from the Supreme Court, including cases such as Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, which underscore the importance of examining the evidence and surrounding circumstances to determine the nature of consent.

The court concluded that the evidence did not convincingly establish the commission of rape and reflected a consensual relationship between two adults emotionally attached and fully aware of the nature of their conduct. As a result, the impugned judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and Singh was discharged from his bail bonds.

Bottom Line:

Rape - Consent given by a prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love, on a promise of marriage, which later does not materialize, cannot be considered as consent given under a misconception of fact unless it is shown that the promise was false from the inception and made with malicious intent to deceive.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 376, 415, 493, 504; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 437A.

Mudi Singh v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2802282