‘Consensual act does not become rape just because of failure to marry’
Times of India | 2 November 2025
Kolkata: After 25 years, Calcutta High Court quashed the conviction of a man for the rape of a minor in 2000 after finding that the woman was an adult at the time and the relationship was consensual.
"Non-fulfilment of their intention to marry does not transform consensual acts into a criminal offence," the HC held.
Justice Prasenjit Biswas, in the 33-page judgment, stated, "The relationship between the appellant and complainant was consensual and based on mutual affection, and the subsequent non-fulfilment 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.
"
The incident dates back to 1994 in North Dinajpur. The victim alleged that the man, with whom she was previously in a relationship, entered her house, put a garland around her neck, and then took her to the bedroom for sex. When she refused, he allegedly forced himself on her and continued to do the same for five to six days. Her claim is that afterwards, when she asked him to get married, he sought Rs 10,000 and, on non-payment, refused to marry her.
She also claimed that he tried to feed her some herbs to terminate pregnancy.
The complaint stated her to be 15 years old. But the transfer certificate issued by Rasakhowa High School showed that she was born in 1974, making her above 20 years of age when the incident was alleged to have taken place. Furthermore, the court pointed out that there was no medical record placed on record.
Furthermore, the case was filed in 1996. This delay punched a further loophole in the prosecution case.
According to Esmotara Begam, secretary of the Mohila Samity of Roshnhowa, the victim had mentioned that the accused had promised to marry her and that, by way of exchanging garlands, they had even solemnised a form of marriage and thereafter had sexual intercourse. The same witness also stated that the victim approached her later as the accused subsequently refused to marry her as promised.
"In the present case, even after the alleged act of forceful sexual intercourse, the victim did not discontinue her relationship with the present appellant. On the contrary, she continued to meet him regularly... This behaviour does not conform to that of a person who has been subjected toa forcible sexual act..." the court observed.