Tripura HC Acquits Man Convicted of Rape, Finds Physical Relationship Was Consensual and Arose From Admitted Love Affair

The High Court of Tripura set aside a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 376(1) IPC, holding that the complainant’s own evidence established a consensual relationship, not rape.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, has acquitted Sri Sukanta Murasing of the charge of rape under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The Bench set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31 January 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, which had sentenced Murasing to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The court found that the prosecution had “miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt,” relying principally on the complainant’s own statements and evidence to conclude that whatever physical relationship existed between the parties was consensual in nature and arose from an admitted love affair that eventually led to a notarised marriage.

The Prosecution Case and Trial Court Conviction

The complainant lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Santirbazaar Police Station on 23 August 2022. According to the complaint, she had become acquainted with Murasing in 2013. In the last part of September 2017, she alleged, Murasing brought her to his house, closed the door, and committed rape against her will. When she started crying, he promised to marry her.

On 22 January 2018, a marriage was solemnised at the complainant’s residence, followed by a joint declaration notarised on 31 January 2018. After the marriage, the complainant alleged, Murasing left her at her paternal home with an assurance that he would conduct a social marriage ceremony and take her to his residence after informing his parents. He visited her house again and assured a grand re-marriage ceremony by 2020. During this period, both parties visited each other’s homes frequently and lived as husband and wife, with physical relations continuing.

After 2020, when the complainant pressed for a social marriage, Murasing assured her it would happen by March 2022. When March 2022 arrived, he refused. Village elders also approached him, but he continued to refuse. The complaint was registered as FIR vide Santirbazaar PS Case No. 2022/STB/026 dated 7 October 2022 under Sections 376, 417, 420, and 34 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belonia, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. At trial, the charge was framed solely under Section 376(1) IPC. Murasing pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. After recording of evidence was complete, Murasing was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all allegations and declined to lead defence evidence. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him as described above, prompting the present criminal appeal.

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Mr. K. Nath, appearing for Murasing, pressed several grounds. He argued that there were substantial contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and that the long delay in lodging the FIR had not been properly explained. He submitted that the complainant herself had admitted in evidence that Murasing had married her and that the marriage was subsisting. She had, he pointed out, described herself as Murasing’s wife while deposing before the trial court. Counsel argued that any cohabitation between the parties was consensual and that Section 376(1) IPC had not been made out. He urged acquittal.

Mr. Raju Datta, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, defended the conviction. He submitted that the trial court’s findings were based on a thorough and careful appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, were well-reasoned and legally sound, and required no interference.

How the Bench Analysed the Evidence

The Division Bench identified the complainant-victim as the star witness and examined her statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate alongside her deposition at trial. From the Section 164 statement, the court found that the complainant had admitted a love affair with Murasing, that physical relations arose from that affair, and that Murasing had performed a form of marriage by cutting his hand and placing blood on her forehead. She had also stated that she frequently visited his house and that she had once aborted by consuming medicine.

The court framed two specific questions for determination: first, whether Murasing had refused to marry the complainant despite a promise to do so and had established physical relations under the garb of that promise; and second, whether the sexual intercourse was without the complainant’s consent, which is essential to establish an offence under Section 376(1) IPC.

To address the second question, the Bench set out the ingredients of Section 375 IPC, which defines rape as sexual intercourse committed against a woman’s will or without her consent. The court then applied those ingredients to the facts. It found that although the complainant alleged rape in September 2017, she had made no complaint to anyone at that time and had not approached the police. Instead, she continued her sexual relationship with Murasing on the assurance of marriage. The court held that this conduct was inconsistent with a claim of non-consent at the initial stage.

The Bench also took note that the complainant had admitted the marriage, that a notarised declaration followed it, and that she continued to describe the marriage as subsisting. Medical evidence, the court found, did not support the commission of rape. The court observed that the complainant was mature enough to understand the consequences of her actions, did not resist Murasing at any point, and did not raise any alarm. She had also become pregnant and aborted, facts she admitted during trial.

The court stated that “consensual relationship within marriage cannot be treated as rape” and held that the facts did not bring the case within the purview of Section 375 IPC. It further held that a complainant who consented to sexual intercourse knowing the consequences “cannot plead she was raped.”

On the Promise-to-Marry Question

The Bench also addressed the first question, whether Murasing had cheated the complainant by making a false promise of marriage to obtain consent for physical relations. On this point, the court found that the evidence did not establish that the promise was false from the outset. The court noted that a notarised marriage declaration had in fact been executed, that both families were aware of the relationship, and that visits between the households continued over several years. The court concluded that the evidence showed a love relationship that turned into physical relations, not a calculated deception to extract consent.

The court observed that the written complaint and the complainant’s court statement together demonstrated that the physical relationship was “absolutely consensual in nature since there was no protest or obstruction or complaint on the part of the complainant at the very initial stage.” The deposition of witnesses, the court found, established a love bond between the parties rather than the commission of rape.

Order

The Division Bench allowed the criminal appeal. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31 January 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in Case No. S.T.(Type-1) 11 of 2023, was set aside. Sukanta Murasing was acquitted of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC for which he had been tried. The court directed that he be set free from incarceration if not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.