Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In Rape Case, Says Complaint Filed “Out Of Grudge” After Breakdown Of Relationship

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man found guilty of rape in 2008, holding that the prosecution's case suffered from contradictions, material omissions and lack of corroboration — especially the complainant's admission that she subsequently married the accused and lived with him as his wife.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, deciding the criminal appeal in CRA 76 of 2009 (Mithun Paul v. State of West Bengal), observed that the written complaint itself concealed the fact of marriage, which emerged only during trial, raising serious doubts about the genuineness of the allegations.

The Court emphasised that the complainant admitted she filed the case because the accused did not continue conjugal life with her, noting: “The complaint has been lodged out of grudge… after marriage, the accused did not lead conjugal life with her.”

As per the prosecution, the complainant alleged that on 23 July 2005 the accused called her to his house on the promise of marriage, sexually assaulted her, and confined her for nine days until she lodged an FIR on 1 August 2005. The trial court convicted him under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

In appeal, the defence argued that the parties were in a romantic relationship and that they married on 8 August 2005 under the Special Marriage Act — a fact hidden in the complaint and revealed only during cross-examination. They lived together for two months thereafter. Several witnesses turned hostile, and the alleged confinement for nine days was never reported by any family member.

The State supported the conviction, arguing that the complainant's testimony was clear and sufficient to sustain the charge.

The Court undertook a careful analysis of the evidence and found the complainant's version inconsistent. She admitted that she had a love affair with the accused, married him after the incident, lived with him as his wife, and even stated she filed the case so she could continue living with him.

The Court found that none of the witnesses whom the complainant claimed to have informed about the incident supported her story. Witnesses PW4, PW5 and PW6 denied knowledge of any rape or confinement, weakening the prosecution's case.

The allegation that she was locked in the accused's house for nine days was not corroborated by family members, neighbours, or any independent witness. The Court noted that despite allegedly knowing of her confinement, no one filed any complaint, which cast doubt on the veracity of the claim.

The medical officer who examined the complainant could not confirm rape and only noted that the hymen was not intact, which, by itself, did not support the prosecution case.

Rejecting the trial court's finding that consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage, the High Court held that no evidence suggested the accused had any deceptive intention at the outset. Since the parties married soon after, “misconception of fact” under Section 90 IPC was not attracted.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's suppression of their marriage, lack of corroboration, hostile witnesses, and unexplained delay together rendered the conviction unsustainable.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, and discharged the appellant from his bail bond.

Case: MITHUN PAUL VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case No: CRA 76 OF 2009

Click here to read order