Reported by Mrinal Banik
Agartala: The High Court of Tripura has overturned the conviction and 10-year prison sentence awarded to a man in a rape case, ruling that a consensual physical relationship within an existing marriage does not attract provisions under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha allowed the appeal filed by Sukanta Murasing against a January 2025 judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Belonia, South Tripura. The trial court had earlier convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered in October 2022, in which the complainant alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted her in 2017. According to the complaint, the two later entered into a marital relationship in January 2018 based on a promise of marriage, supported by a notarised declaration. The woman later alleged that the accused refused to formally acknowledge the marriage before society and denied the relationship in front of village elders.
After examining the evidence and witness statements, the High Court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The bench observed that the complainant herself had admitted, both in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and during the trial, that the two shared a long-term romantic relationship and that their marriage continued to remain valid.
The court held that a consensual relationship between spouses could not be categorised as rape under Section 375 IPC. It further observed that the complainant was aware of the nature and consequences of the relationship and had not raised objections during the period of intimacy.
The judges also pointed out that despite alleging sexual assault in 2017, the complainant continued to maintain a physical relationship with the appellant and lived with him as husband and wife. The court stated that the relationship appeared to be consensual in nature, with no evidence of resistance or complaint at the initial stage.
The bench further remarked that the medical evidence presented during the trial did not substantiate allegations of rape. Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the court described the relationship as a consensual romantic bond rather than a criminal offence.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the conviction and directed the immediate release of the appellant, unless required in connection with any other case.
During the hearing, the state government, represented by the Public Prosecutor, defended the trial court’s verdict and argued that the conviction was based on proper evaluation of evidence.
