6 min readNew DelhiMay 29, 2026 07:00 AM IST
The Calcutta High Court recently set aside the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to a man in a rape case, observing that the grave charge cannot be treated as a “conditional grievance” that is waived upon the execution of a marriage registration.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay said the appellant’s flight from the registry office just before the proposed marriage registration, allegedly fixed as part of a compromise between the families, represented the “desperate act” of an individual escaping a “coercive social mechanism” designed to enforce matrimony through “institutional pressure”.
“Criminal law cannot be permitted to be deployed as a blunt instrument for the forced solemnization of marriage, nor can the grave charge of rape be treated as a conditional grievance that is waived upon the execution of a marriage register and revived only upon its failure,” the May 22 order read.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay held that the active attempt to trade a criminal liability for a domestic settlement strips the prosecution’s case of its pristine, spontaneous character.
The high court was hearing the appeal filed by a man challenging the trial court’s order of May 2008, which sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years on the charges of sexually assaulting a woman.
Failed compromise led to FIR
It was placed on record that in October 2007, the survivor filed a complaint alleging that the appellant committed rape upon her against her will after allegedly assuring her that he would marry her.
According to the prosecution, after the allegation surfaced, discussions were held between the two families and village elders to settle the matter through marriage. A compromise meeting was allegedly held at the police station on October 25, 2007, and the marriage was fixed for October 29, 2007. However, the accused allegedly left the registry office before the marriage could be registered, following which the FIR was formally filed.
In 2008, a trial court convicted the accused of the charges of rape and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, the accused approached the Calcutta High Court with this appeal.
Story continues below this ad
Must separate emotions from ‘strict legal assessment’
- The high court emphasised that the analytical adjudication of this criminal appeal mandates that emotions must be kept separate from a strict legal assessment of the case.
- The court noted that criminal jurisprudence recognises that a delay in registering an offence of this personal magnitude within a rural ecosystem cannot be evaluated by a clinical stopwatch.
- The initial shock and dread of social marginalisation frequently paralyse a survivor’s immediate familial circle.
- The permissive legal approach is allowed only when there is no intervening manipulation.
- The court further mentioned that the lenient legal approach loses its elasticity when the delay is utilised as a window for social engineering and matrimonial leverage.
- The active attempt to trade a criminal liability for a domestic settlement strips the prosecution’s case of its pristine, spontaneous character, the court pointed out.
- It renders the eventual invocation of criminal proceedings appear like an afterthought born from the breakdown of private negotiations.
‘Asset to compel marital alliance’
- The court noted that the evidence demonstrated that the informant’s family spent this month-long period engaging in community-brokered negotiations, treating the grave allegation of a violation not as a spontaneous cry for criminal justice, but as an asset to compel a marriage alliance.
- The judge was surprised that the survivor was not allowed to be physically examined for a medical opinion due to being “timidly bashful”.
- The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the survivor’s age as a minor.
- It pointed out that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational parameters of a violation on the specific date alleged beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction stands entirely vitiated.
- It noted that the appellant was granted the full, unvarnished benefit of reasonable doubt.
Highly orchestrated social arbitrations
Representing the man, advocate Abhra Mukherjee argued that these highly orchestrated social arbitrations, spearheaded by village elders and local factions, point not to the guilt of the appellant, but to an aggressive, community-led extortion campaign designed to force the appellant into a coercive matrimonial alliance.
It was argued with great emphasis that the appellant’s strategic flight from the registry office and his refusal to sign formal marital applications are not indices of a guilty mind escaping from justice, but rather the natural actions of an innocent young man evading a social trap and resisting a forced marriage predicated upon an entirely fabricated accusation.
He argued the prosecution’s heavy reliance on the purported meetings at the Purulia registry office and within the physical precincts of the police station was a double-edged sword that cuts through the core of their own case.
Active participation of accused
Appearing for the state, advocate Faria Hossain demonstrated that the prosecution’s case does not suffer from isolation, but was supported by a seamless chain of corroborative evidence.
Story continues below this ad
It was argued that the behavioural responses of the family members—including the temporary preservation of domestic silence to avoid immediate public scandal—are entirely consistent with normal human conduct in a rural joint family structure.
It was further submitted that the appellant’s active participation in these negotiations and his subsequent calculated flight from the registry office constitute clear, circumstantial proof of a guilty mind.
It was added that the appellant’s deceptive deployment of a marital promise was a strategic shield to evade immediate arrest, further highlighting his underlying culpability.
