‘Only to satisfy lust’: Calcutta High Court confirms man’s guilt for ‘luring, raping’ teen with marriage promise

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee said that consent is not valid if given under a misconception of fact known to the accused. (Image enhanced using AI)

The order added that this kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be any consent because the survivor, from the very beginning, was under a misconception of fact that the accused intends to marry her; therefore, she had submitted to sexual intercourse with him.

Findings

• There was a love affair between the survivor and the petitioner, and there was a consensual sexual relationship, but with the assurance to marry her, which was refused when she became pregnant.
• The statement also disclosed that she voluntarily went to the house of the petitioner after he called her on those occasions.
• The point to be considered is whether such consent of the victim was based on a misconception from the very inception or not.
• The practitioner in his examination in chief only took the defence of innocence when the incriminating materials were placed before him.
• When he refused to marry her, she could not confide in her parents “out of shame” and voluntarily surrendered herself to the man for love with the person who assured her of marriage.
• It is clear that the survivor had sexual intercourse with the accused on the representation made by the accused that he would marry her.
• This was a false promise held out by the accused, and had this promise not been given, she would not have permitted the accused to have sexual intercourse.
• This was a false promise held out by the accused, and had this promise not been given, she would not have permitted the accused to have sexual intercourse.
• Whether this amounts to consent or the accused obtained consent by playing fraud on her.
• He also gave a wrist watch and assured to provide money, and hence lured the lady to get attracted towards him.
• It can also be seen that they cohabitate for four days, and also when the petitioner’s wife was not present.
• There was a village salish and a talk of compromise, but the proprietor refused to pay the amount claimed.
• The consent was based solely on the promise of marriage, and the behaviour of the petitioner was false from the beginning, and hence the consent was sunder misconception of fact and therefore was not a valid consent.
• Medical injury was not essential since the examination was held a month later, when the victim already delivered a child.
  It is more than clear that the accused made a false promise that he would marry her and cohabited with her for four days, and after she conceived, he refused to marry her.
• The intention of the accused right from the beginning was not bona fide, and the poor girl submitted to the lust of the accused, completely being misled by the accused, who made the promise of marriage if she gave him a child.
• This kind of consent was taken by the accused with a clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuaded the girl to believe that he was going to marry her, and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under a total misconception, and hence cannot be treated as a consent.

Background

• The petitioner filed a plea against the trial court order, which held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC and sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for seven years.
• The legal proceedings began following a complaint lodged on January 1, 2006, by the mother of the survivor.
• The mother alleged that the petitioner cohabited with her daughter with a promise to marry her without their knowledge, and she has been impregnated of five to six months later.
• According to the prosecution, after knowing the fact, the de facto complainant and her family members requested the petitioner to marry her, but he refused such a proposal of marriage. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged.
• The case was registered under Section 376 of the IPC, and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner.
• The trial court, after considering the evidence and the argument advanced by the parties, passed the order of conviction against the petitioner.