Consensual cohabitation following a promise of marriage and notarized declaration cannot be characterized as rape.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 31.01.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, convicting him under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment

The complainant alleged that the appellant, under a proposal of love, committed rape against her will in September 2017

Subsequently, the parties entered into a notarized marriage declaration in January 2018 and lived as husband and wife

The complainant alleged that the appellant later refused to conduct a formal social marriage ceremony in 2022, leading to the FIR

During the trial, the victim admitted to a long-term consensual relationship, a subsisting marriage, and an instance of medical abortion during their time together

The court primarily applied Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines "rape" and emphasizes that the act must be "against her will" or "without her consent"

The Court applied the principle that consensual physical relationships, especially those occurring within the subsistence of a marriage or a long-term relationship where the victim is a mature adult capable of understanding consequences, do not fall under the purview of Section 375 IPC

It further relied on the trite law that consensual cohabitation between a husband and wife (or parties living as such) cannot be treated as rape

The Court observed that the victim’s own testimony and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement revealed a deep love affair and physical relations that were "absolutely consensual in nature"

The Court noted there was no protest or complaint at the initial stage in 2017; instead, the parties formalised their relationship through a notarized declaration and continued to live as husband and wife

The Court highlights that the victim was "matured enough to understand the consequence" and did not raise any alarm over several years

Crucially, the Court found that the marriage was still in subsistence during the trial and the victim personified herself as the appellant's wife

Since the physical intimacy was a result of a voluntary emotional and legal bond, the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of "lack of consent" required for a conviction under Section 376

the court answered that a consensual relationship within a subsisting marriage cannot be categorized as rape

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2025 was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be set free