Sri Sukanta Murasing v. The State of Tripura, 2026

The complainant alleged that she came into contact with the appellant in the year 2013 and they developed a relationship.

According to the prosecution, the appellant allegedly established physical relations with the complainant in September 2017 on the promise of marriage.

The complainant further stated that the parties later got married on 22.01.2018 and also executed a notarized joint declaration on 31.01.2018.

It was alleged that despite repeated assurances, the appellant later refused to conduct a public or social marriage ceremony.

Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 376, 417, 420 and 34 IPC.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the relationship was completely consensual and that the marriage between the parties was still subsisting.

The appellant also contended that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and that the ingredients of rape were not established.

The Tripura High Court held that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and arose out of a long-standing love affair.

The Court observed that the complainant herself admitted during trial that the parties had married and that the marriage continued to subsist.

The Bench noted that the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164(5) CrPC clearly established that the parties were in a love relationship and had consensual physical relations.

The Court further observed that the complainant had stated that the appellant married her by applying blood on her forehead and that she frequently visited his residence.

Referring to Section 375 IPC, the Court held that the essential ingredient of absence of consent was not proved by the prosecution.

The Court found that the complainant voluntarily continued the relationship despite fully understanding its nature and consequences.

The Bench also observed that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape.

The Court concluded that merely because the appellant allegedly refused to conduct a social marriage ceremony, the consensual relationship could not subsequently be converted into an allegation of rape.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC.

The judgment reiterates the settled principle that consensual relationships cannot automatically be criminalized as rape merely because the relationship later deteriorates.

The Court carefully distinguished between a false promise of marriage inducing consent and a genuine consensual relationship arising from mutual affection and cohabitation.

By emphasizing the requirement of absence of consent under Section 375 IPC, the judgment reinforces the foundational principles governing rape prosecutions.

The Court relied significantly on the complainant’s own admissions regarding marriage, cohabitation and continued relationship with the appellant.

The ruling highlights that criminal law should not be misused to penalize failed relationships where consent was clearly established.

The judgment also demonstrates judicial scrutiny of medical and documentary evidence before sustaining a conviction under serious offences like rape.

The decision contributes to the evolving jurisprudence distinguishing consensual relationships from exploitative conduct punishable under rape laws.