Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
Gobinda @ Rabindranath Roy @ Bhuttu – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
C.R.A. Nos. 59, 168 of 2019
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Criminal - Rape - IPC Sections 417, 376 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC, interpreting consent obtained through deception as invalid, which influenced the conviction of the accused for rape.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for raping the victim under the false pretext of marriage, which he later denied, claiming the relationship was consensual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had suppressed his marital status and misled the victim, leading to a conviction under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC.
Issues: Whether the relationship was consensual or constituted rape due to the accused's false promise of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that consent obtained through deception is not valid, thus constituting rape under Section 376 IPC.
Result: The appeals are dismissed, and the conviction is upheld.
JUDGMENT :
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2018 and 03.12.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dinhata, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 04 (02)/2018 arising out of Sessions Case No. 82 of 2017, thereby holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him as follows:
(ii) For the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code - rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.
2. Dinhata Police Station case No. 808 of 2016 dated 09.09.2016 was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint submitted by the victim ‘X’ with the Inspector-in-Charge, Dinhata Police Station to the effect that for about a year she had relationship with the accused Gobinda @ Robindranath Roy @ Bhuttu and on the pretext of marrying her the accused on several occasions raped her. On 07.09.2016 when the accused came to their house, as earlier, her family members enquired from him and came to know that he was already married and had a child. The complainant/victim alleged that the accused raped her several times on the false plea of marrying her. On 08.09.2016 a village Salishi was called by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat but the accused person did not obey the decision of Salishi and as such she was compelled to lodge the complaint requesting the Police authorities to investigate and take legal action.
3. Relying on the aforesaid complaint Dinhata Police Station registered case under Section 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was endorsed to Sub-Inspector Pradip Chakraborty who after collecting the materials and on conclusion of investigation, submitted Charge-sheet under Sections 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was thereafter committed by the Learned ACJM, Dinhata to the Court of Sessions being the Trial Court.
4. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of the materials so relied upon by the prosecution framed charges under Sections 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over to the accused to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Here, it would be relevant to state that on conclusion of trial the learned Trial Court found that there were materials to frame additional charges and consequently framed charges under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon nine (9) witnesses which included, PW-1 ‘X’, victim girl/complainant; PW-2 ‘Y’ father of the victim girl; PW-3 ‘Z’ mother of the victim girl; PW-4 ‘A’ sister-in-law (brother’s wife) of the victim girl; PW-5 Dr. Purna Chandra Hansda, who conducted medical examination of the victim girl; PW-6 Gouranga Adhikary, NVF of Dinhata Police Station; PW-7 Tapan Kumar Barman, Civic Volunteer of Dinhata Police Station; PW-8 Anita Roy, lady constable attached to the Dinhata Police Station; PW-9 Pradip Chakraborty, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Dinhata Police Station, Investigating Officer of the case.
6. PW-1 is the victim and the complainant of the case who deposed that she had an affair with accused for about one year prior to the date of submitting the written complaint for which he used to mix with the accused and also had communication over telephone. On having promised to marry her, she cohabitated with the accused several occasions. However, the accused suppressed that he was married and had a child. She came to know of such marriage and the accused who was having a child on 07-09-2016 in the evening only after being enquired by her family members. On a false pretext of marrying her the accused on several occasions raped her which she had divulged to her family members on 08-09-2016. She also de
Rape and cheating – Moral indignation cannot take place of legal proof that cohabitation of parties was on the basis of a dishonest representation of appellant.
Consent in sexual relations must be informed and voluntary; mere promise of marriage does not constitute grounds for rape if the relationship is consensual.
Consent given under a false promise of marriage is not considered valid consent, and the distinction between rape and consensual sex must be carefully examined based on the active and reasoned delibe....
Consent for sexual intercourse must be voluntary and not procured through a misconception of fact, as established under Section 375 and Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code.
A consensual relationship, even with a promise to marry, does not constitute rape if the other party is aware of the accused's marital status and consents willingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offence under Section 415/417 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that at the relevant time of the incident or at the initial stag....
Consent in sexual relationships must be scrutinized for deception linked to promises of marriage; a mere breach does not equate to coercion or rape.
Criminal Law - Charge of Rape - Conviction Upheld - Age of Prosecutrix - Victim was at her tender age when she met the appellant on her way to school. There is no evidence at all that they were in de....
Mere failure to live up to promise of marriage without anything more cannot be a ground to convict a person of rape.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
