WEST BENGAL: <\/em>In an important judgment, the Calcutta High Court<\/a><\/strong> presided over by Hon\u2019ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das<\/strong>, dealt with a case where a man was earlier convicted and sentenced to 7 years<\/strong>, but the truth unfolded very differently when the evidence was closely examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case started with allegations that the woman was called to the accused\u2019s house on the promise of marriage<\/strong> and was assaulted. Based on this, a criminal case was filed and the trial court convicted the man. But when the High Court looked at the full story, serious cracks appeared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman herself admitted that there was a love relationship<\/strong> before the incident. Not just that, she also admitted that she later married the same man and lived with him as husband and wife for about two months<\/strong>. This was a crucial fact which was not disclosed in the initial complaint.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The most important turning point came when she clearly admitted that the case was filed because the accused did not continue the relationship. She even accepted that she would not have filed the case if he had lived with her as husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe contents of the written complaint as well as the evidence of the victim herself manifest that such complaint has been lodged out of grudge.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It also came out that although she claimed to have been confined for nine days, no complaint was made by her family during that period<\/strong>. Even the witnesses who were supposed to support her version did not back the story in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNone of the witnesses to whom she alleged to have communicated about the incident\u2026 supported her case.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Medical evidence also did not support the allegation<\/strong>, as the doctor could not confirm whether any assault had taken place. This further weakened the prosecution case, which was already full of contradictions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Looking at the entire situation, the court made it clear that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is nothing on record to demonstrate that such a promise was made prior to the alleged act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also found that the trial court\u2019s assumption about consent being based on false promise was not legally sustainable<\/strong>. It clearly held that such an interpretation \u201cdo not appear to be tenable\u2026 and is not sustainable in the eye of law.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, what started as a serious criminal case was found to be a relationship dispute<\/strong> that later turned into a legal battle. The contradictions, delay, suppressed facts, and lack of supporting evidence<\/strong> made it clear that the conviction could not stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment is a strong reminder that criminal law cannot be used to settle personal scores after a relationship breaks down<\/strong>. Courts must separate real offences from cases driven by emotions, otherwise an innocent man ends up paying the price for a failed relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law\/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 376 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for rape<\/a><\/td> Trial court convicted the accused under this section<\/td><\/tr> Section 374(2) CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Appeal against conviction<\/td> Accused approached High Court under this provision<\/td><\/tr> Section 313 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Accused\u2019s statement during trial<\/td> Accused admitted relationship and marriage<\/td><\/tr> Section 164 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Statement before Magistrate<\/td> Victim\u2019s statement recorded during investigation<\/td><\/tr> Section 90 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Consent under fear\/misconception<\/td> Court rejected claim that consent was obtained by false promise<\/td><\/tr> Evidence Act <\/a>\u2013 Burden of Proof<\/strong><\/td> Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt<\/td> Court found prosecution failed to meet this standard<\/td><\/tr> False Promise of Marriage<\/a> Doctrine<\/strong><\/td> Requires proof of intent to deceive from beginning<\/td> Court found no evidence of such intention<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n