Tripura High Court: Liberty to Have Sexual Intercourse is Only Permitted to a Person with Whom One is in Passionate Love

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

In the case of Md. Burhan Uddin v. State of Tripura, the High Court quashed the judgment of the North Tripura District Court. The District Court had convicted the accused of rape. As a result, the accused filed an appeal against the District Court’s judgment.

Facts of the Case

The victim filed a complaint against the appellants in the Kadamtala police station on 28.05.2015. She stated that a man named Burhan Uddin raped her with the help of her neighbour named Ruhela Begum. Then the victim filed a case against both of the appellants. The Special Judge framed the charges against Burhan Uddin and Ruhela Begum. Therefore, Burhan was charged under Section 376(i), Section 34 of IPC and Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act,2012. However, Burhan pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Ruhela Begum was also charged under the same sections and she also pleaded her innocence.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ruhela Begum (Appellant 2) had asked the victim to come to her house. The victim was her neighbour and assisted her in activities related to her daughter’s marriage. Burhan Uddin ( Appellant 1) also visited Ruhela’s hut to help her. All three were from the same village. One day he pressed the victim’s mouth with a handkerchief and committed rape on her in Ruhela’s hut. Moreover, he committed rape against the victim’s desire.

The victim narrated the whole incident to Ruhela Begum, who asked her to stay quiet. She also proposed a marriage between the victim and Burhan. Further, the mother of the victim came to know that the victim was 5 months pregnant. The victim informed Burhan and asked to marry him. Burhan refused to marry her and Ruhela Begum also denied the whole incident.

He submitted that the victim used to pay visits to Ruhela’s house. Here, she and Burhan developed physical relations. Further, he submitted that the victim had consented only on the promise of marriage. He asserted that Burhan had promised to marry her.

Arguments of the Respondent

Mr Nandi, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that both the appellants were implicated with the instant case. He submitted that the prosecutrix and appellant Burhan willingly involved in sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix consented to such physical relations. There are no ingredients of Section 376(D)/34 of IPC to punish the appellants under these offences.

Court’s Observation

The Court found that the victim used to visit Ruhela Begum’s hut. Moreover, she had permitted Burhan Uddin to involve in sexual intercourse with her. In the Court’s opinion, “this liberty is only permitted to a person with whom one is in passionate love”. She did not divulge their relationship to anyone. She even suppressed the fact of alleged ‘rape’ to her mother. Her mother was unaware of the relationship and its basis.

Moreover, she did not know that the relationship was based on a promise of marriage. Only when she found that she was five months pregnant, she informed her mother. There is no evidence that the appellant Burhan Uddin had promised to marry her before the sexual intercourse. So, there is no offence under Sec.375.

Court also referred the decision of the Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Kaini Rajan v State of Kerala (2013); and Anurag Soni v. the State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2019) to arrive at this conclusion.

Court’s Decision

The Court disagreed with the findings of the learned Special Judge. It set aside and quashed the judgment of the District Court. It acquitted the appellants from all charges levelled against them. They are set at liberty. The Court also discharged the surety(s) of their bail bond.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -