The Tripura High Court has set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in a rape case, holding that the relationship between the parties was consensual and arose out of a long-standing love affair. The division bench observed that the complainant herself admitted during trial that the two had married and continued to remain husband and wife.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Sukanta Murasing against a January 31, 2025 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, which had convicted him under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh.
According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that she became acquainted with the appellant in 2013 and later entered into a relationship with him. She claimed that in September 2017, he established physical relations with her against her will after promising marriage. The complaint further stated that the couple later solemnized a marriage at her residence in January 2018 and also executed a notarized declaration.
The woman alleged that despite assurances of a social marriage ceremony and continued cohabitation, the appellant eventually refused to marry her publicly in 2022, following which the FIR was lodged.
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha closely examined the complainant’s statements, including her deposition and statement recorded before the Magistrate.
The High Court noted that the complainant had admitted to being in a romantic relationship with the appellant and stated that physical relations took place during the course of that relationship. The court also recorded that she had acknowledged a form of marriage between them and admitted that the relationship continued for several years.
The bench observed,
“Whatever physical relation took place between them was absolutely consensual in nature since there was no protest or obstruction or complaint on the part of the complainant at the very initial stage.”
The court further said the records showed a continuing relationship rather than a case of coercion. It also took note of the delay in lodging the complaint and the complainant’s admission that she had continued living with the appellant as husband and wife.
Referring to the ingredients of Section 375 IPC, the bench stated that the evidence on record did not establish lack of consent. The judges further observed that the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s case.
“It is trite law that consensual relationship within marriage cannot be treated as rape,” the court said while concluding that the case did not fall within the scope of Section 375 IPC.
Allowing the criminal appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt,” the bench observed while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376(1) IPC and directed that he be released from custody if not required in any other case.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Sukanta Murasing v. State of Tripura
Case Number: Crl. A. (J) 16/2025
Judges: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
Decision Date: May 13, 2026
