Calcutta High Court: Prolonged Physical Relationship Indicates Consent, Not Rape
The Calcutta High Court held that a prolonged physical relationship is not rape, but rather a sign of a consensual relationship. The court overturned a lower court's verdict convicting a man of rape and fraud. The court stated that the prosecution failed to prove the rape charge because the complainant was an adult and had admitted to a long-term relationship.
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has said that a protracted physical relationship is not rape but indicative of a consensual relationship. In its ruling, the High Court overturned a lower court's verdict convicting a man of rape (Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code) and fraud (Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code).
The High Court, while allowing the appeal, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of rape and that between the appellant and the complainant, there was a relationship by consent and not under compulsion.
Justice Prasenjit Biswas, however, ruled that at the time of the incident, the complainant was an adult woman, above 20 years of age. Moreover, the complainant's admission of having prolonged physical contact with the petitioner during her cross-examination negates the possibility of rape. Complete absence of medical evidence in the case and non-examination of star prosecution witnesses were considered by the court as serious lapses.
Want to get your story featured as above? click here!
Want to get your story featured as above? click here!
The appellant filed this appeal against a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Islampur on July 7, 2000. The lower court had convicted her under sections 376 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹7,000.
Dipanjan Chatterjee, representing the appellant, argued that the material on record was wholly insufficient to justify the conviction. He pointed to substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses' statements. The court gave considerable weight to the victim's age. Based on her transfer certificate (Form-3), her date of birth was January 2, 1974.
The court calculated that the victim was over 20 years of age at the time of the incident on March 13, 1994. Justice Biswas remarked that she was thus an adult and a mature young woman, capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her own actions and decisions.
