Refusal To Conduct Social Wedding After Notarized Marriage Does Not Convert Consensual Relationship Into Rape: Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man convicted under Section 376(1) IPC, holding that a consensual relationship arising out of a long-standing love affair and subsisting marriage could not subsequently be treated as rape merely because the accused allegedly refused to conduct a social marriage ceremony. The Court observed that the complainant herself admitted to the existence of...
The Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man convicted under Section 376(1) IPC, holding that a consensual relationship arising out of a long-standing love affair and subsisting marriage could not subsequently be treated as rape merely because the accused allegedly refused to conduct a social marriage ceremony.
The Court observed that the complainant herself admitted to the existence of a notarized marriage and continued cohabitation, and found that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual in nature.
Division Bench of Justice Dr.T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S.Datta Purkayastha remarked that: “...commission of rape cannot be established, rather a love bondage/relation between the appellant and the complainant has been well established... the complainant-victim had admitted that there was marriage between her which was followed by notarized declaration and the said marriage is still in subsistence.”
Background:
According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that she came into contact with the appellant in 2013 and that in September 2017, he forcibly established physical relations with her after promising marriage. The complaint further stated that the parties later solemnized their marriage on January 22, 2018, followed by a notarized joint declaration on January 31, 2018. The complainant alleged that despite repeated assurances of a social marriage ceremony, the appellant later refused to marry her publicly.
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 417, 420 and 34 IPC, following which a charge sheet was filed. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual, that they were married, and that the complainant herself admitted during trial that the marriage was still subsisting. It was also argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and that no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out.
After examining the evidence, the High Court observed that the complainant's own statement under Section 164(5) CrPC revealed that the parties were in a love relationship and had physical relations arising out of that relationship. The Court noted that the complainant had stated that the appellant married her by applying blood on her forehead and that she frequently visited his house.
Referring to Section 375 IPC, the Court observed that the essential ingredient of absence of consent was not established in the present case.
The Court noted that the marriage between the parties continued to subsist and that she had voluntarily continued the relationship despite understanding its consequences. The medical evidence, according to the Court, also did not support the allegation of rape.
Thus, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Case Name: Sri Sukanta Murasing V/s The State of Tripura
Case No.: Crl.A. (J) 16/2025
Date of Decision: 13.05.2026