Back
From Promise to Perjury? Calcutta HC Frees Man in Rape Case, Blames 'Grudge' After Wedding
In a nuanced verdict blending love, betrayal, and legal scrutiny, the has acquitted Mithun Paul, overturning a trial court's conviction for rape under . Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guilt , citing the victim's own admissions of a pre-existing romance, post-incident marriage, and a complaint lodged purely out of relational spite. This , decision in Mithun Paul v. State of West Bengal (CRA 76 of 2009) underscores the limits of uncorroborated testimony in sexual assault cases.
The Night That Sparked a Saga: Assault Claim and Nine-Day Ordeal?
The saga began on , around 5:30 PM in Nadia district. The 18-year-old victim alleged that Paul, her acquaintance, lured her to his empty home on a marriage promise, forcibly raped her—causing bleeding—and washed the bloodied bedsheet. She claimed confinement in a locked room until August 1, when his mother evicted her. Only then did she file an FIR at Kotwali PS (Case No. 261/2005).
The , convicted Paul in Sessions Case No. 40(7)/2006, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a ₹2,000 fine. Paul appealed, arguing the case masked a soured love story.
Defence's Love Story Twist: Hidden Marriage, Kidnap Drama, and False Frame-Up
Paul's counsel,
, painted a picture of consensual passion gone wrong. Key points:
-
Pre-existing romance
: The duo had a love affair; no forcible element.
- Suppressed marriage : Victim wed Paul on , under the (civil suit pending). They cohabited as husband-wife for two months.
-
Motive exposed
: Cross-examination revealed the FIR was filed to force Paul back after he left her for another; she admitted,
"I would not have filed the case if the accused led conjugal life with her."
- Witness failures : PWs 4-6 (local informants) turned hostile, denying rape or confinement knowledge.
- No family outcry : Despite alleged nine-day lockdown, no prior complaints from kin.
- Medical ambiguity : PW8 (doctor) noted non-intact hymen but couldn't confirm rape; victim admitted prior sexual exposure.
A kidnapping case by victim's in-laws against Paul's family added to the relational breakdown narrative.
Prosecution Clings to Victim's Word: 'Clear Testimony Enough'?
State counsel urged upholding the trial court, emphasizing the victim's detailed account as PW2—rape, bleeding, washing evidence, local alerts, and statement. Medical exam on FIR day and her non-consensual protest were highlighted. But the bench found this solitary voice unreliable amid contradictions.
Piercing the Veil: No False Promise, No Misconception, No Proof
Justice Das meticulously dismantled the case, invoking bedrock principles:
-
Sole testimony rule
:
"It is a settled law that in an offence of sexual assault, the
can be the basis... provided her evidence
."
- Grudge revelation : Complaint hid marriage, disclosed only in cross-exam. Victim admitted filing to sustain wedlock.
- Confinement myth : No corroboration; family knew but stayed silent for days—implausible if true.
- Consent clarity : Even assuming intercourse, no evidence of initial deceitful promise under ( ). Parties wed soon after; victim's age (18) and romance negated fear or deceit.
- Hostile chorus : Key locals (PWs 4-6) refuted claims; PW3 (victim's mother) contradicted on romance timeline.
Rejecting trial court's 'false promise' inference, the court stressed prosecution's burden: , not presumption.
Bench's Blunt Truths: Quotes That Sealed the Acquittal
-
"The contents of the written complaint as well as the evidence of the victim herself manifest that such complaint has been lodged out of grudge... after marriage, the accused did not lead conjugal life with her."
-
"No complaint was lodged by any of the family members even after having knowledge that she was kept inside the house of the accused for 9 days."
-
"Even if... the prosecution case is accepted... it cannot be inferred... that there existed any intention from the very inception to deceive her by a
."
-
"Question of misconception does not arise. Since they got married and lead a conjugal [life]. This court do not find any significant facts to establish any
under
."
-
"The evidence of the victim, failed to inspire any confidence... due to suppression of fact of the marriage."
Verdict's Ripple: Appeal Allowed, Man Walks Free
The appeal succeeded:
"This criminal appeal stands allowed. The judgement and order of conviction... is hereby set aside."
Paul was discharged from bail bonds, with urgent copy provisions.
This ruling, echoed in media summaries, warns against weaponized complaints in consensual-turned-contentious relations. It reinforces that while victim testimony holds weight, contradictions, suppressions, and absent corroboration demand acquittal—potentially guiding future Section 376 appeals amid evolving consent debates.
