Sri Vijaya Puram, May 11: The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Sri Vijaya Puram has reopened scrutiny of one of the most controversial criminal cases involving the Andaman and Nicobar Police, sharply criticising the earlier acquittal of police constable in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage and forced abortion of a fellow woman constable.
In a strongly worded 77-page judgment delivered on April 23, 2026, the Bench observed that the case brought “collective shame” upon the police administration of the islands, noting that a woman constable allegedly suffered severe bleeding inside a police station after consuming abortion pills allegedly provided by a colleague who had repeatedly promised to marry her.
The High Court was hearing appeals filed both by the victim woman constable and the State administration against a 2024 Sessions Court verdict that had acquitted the police constable of charges under Sections 376, 312 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench questioned several findings made by the trial court, particularly its conclusion that there was no promise of marriage from the very beginning of the relationship. Calling that observation “perverse and beyond records,” the High Court said the complainant had consistently stated in the FIR, her Section 164 CrPC statement, and her court testimony that the accused had promised marriage before establishing physical relations with her.
According to records cited in the judgment, both constables belonged to the same batch and were posted at Aberdeen Police Station in Sri Vijaya Puram. The woman constable alleged that the accuse proposed marriage to her in April 2013 and later used those assurances to repeatedly establish sexual relations in secluded areas near Science Centre and inside a vehicle.
She alleged that after she became pregnant, he convinced her to terminate the pregnancy and gave her medicines while insisting that disclosure of the pregnancy would create problems for his family and affect his sisters’ marriage prospects.
Court Questions Findings
The High Court judgment extensively analysed the Sessions Court’s reasoning and found serious flaws in its interpretation of evidence.
The trial court had earlier held that the relationship appeared consensual and that there was no evidence showing the promise of marriage existed from the inception of the physical relationship.
However, the High Court said the complainant’s allegations remained consistent across all stages of the case. The woman constable repeatedly stated that the accuse assured her he would marry her whenever she resisted sexual advances.
The Bench also noted that the Sessions Court itself had accepted that a love affair existed between the two constables, a finding never challenged by the defence. Witness testimonies from colleagues were cited in support of the existence of a close relationship between the two.
The judgment further records allegations that the woman constable suffered severe abdominal pain and bleeding while on duty in October 2013 after allegedly consuming medicines given by the accused. Fellow women staff members then shifted her to GB Pant Hospital before she was allegedly moved to a private clinic by the accuse later the same evening.
The High Court observed that while conviction or acquittal remains a separate legal issue, the allegations themselves reflect a disturbing institutional reality because the incident allegedly unfolded within the police establishment itself.
Defence Says Consensual
The accuse denied all allegations during the proceedings and claimed the criminal case was fabricated after he and his family refused marriage proposals from the complainant’s side.
The defence argued that there was no proof of sexual assault, no direct evidence showing he administered abortion pills, and no medical documentation conclusively proving the alleged abortion.
It was also argued that the complainant voluntarily continued the relationship for months and filed the police complaint only after marriage negotiations allegedly failed.
Questions were raised over missing hospital records, the absence of medico-legal examination, alleged manipulation of clinic documents, and lack of independent eyewitnesses.
The High Court, however, rejected the argument that absence of direct witnesses weakened the prosecution case. The Bench observed that sexual relations generally occur in private spaces and that the testimony of a prosecutrix alone can be sufficient if found reliable and trustworthy.
Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the Bench reiterated that courts should not insist on unnecessary corroboration in sexual assault cases if the victim’s testimony inspires confidence.
Promise and Consent
A major issue before the High Court was whether consent obtained through a false promise of marriage could legally amount to consent at all.
The Bench referred to multiple Supreme Court rulings while examining the distinction between a consensual relationship that later failed and a relationship initiated through deliberate deception.
The Court observed that the accused allegedly continued assuring the complainant of marriage before and after sexual intercourse while simultaneously warning her not to reveal the relationship to anyone.
The judgment stated that such conduct suggested the accused “was from the very inception not eager to marry her but gave false promises of marriage to secure sexual favour from the victim.”
The Bench further observed that the complainant’s delay in filing the FIR could not automatically destroy the prosecution case because she had allegedly continued believing that the accused would eventually marry her.
The High Court also underlined that investigation lapses, absence of extensive medical evidence, or procedural failures by investigators cannot by themselves invalidate the testimony of a sexual assault survivor.
The case has now emerged as one of the most closely watched legal battles in the islands in recent years, not only because it involves police personnel, but also because of the High Court’s unusually sharp criticism of the earlier acquittal and its observations on abuse of trust within the force itself.
