Courts should not lightly infer consent of rape victim — SC

NEW DELHI, AUG 26: The Supreme Court has convicted a teenager of committing rape and ruled that submission of the body by the victim under...

int(3)

NEW DELHI, AUG 26: The Supreme Court has convicted a teenager of committing rape and ruled that submission of the body by the victim under fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act.

Setting aside his acquittal granted on the ground that the victim had consented to the sexual act, the court said, "Consent for the purpose of Section 375 (IPC) requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act, but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistance and assent."

The Himachal Pradesh Government had appealed against the acquittal of 17-year old Mango Ram, who was charged of raping his sister’s 13-year-old daughter.

Story continues below this ad

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused saying the evidence as a whole indicated that there was a consent on the part of the victim to have the sexual act. The High Court did not interfere with the findings of the Sessions Court, holding that they were neither perverse nor grossly wrong.

A bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice A S Anand, Justice R C Lahoti and Justice K G Balakrishnan while reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court, said the evidence as a whole indicated that there was resistance by the victim and there was no voluntary participation by her in the sexual act.

Justice Balakrishnan, writing the judgment for the bench, said whether there was consent or not was to be ascertained only on a careful study of all circumstances.

"From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix (victim) had given consent and thereafter she turned round and acted against the interest of the accused," he said.

Story continues below this ad

There was credible evidence that she resisted the onslaught and made all possible efforts to prevent the accused from raping her, Justice Balakrishnan said and added, "Therefore, the finding entered by the Sessions judge that there was consent on the part of the prosecutrix is without basis."

However, keeping in view the relation between the two families to which the victim and the convict belonged and that the incident occurred in 1993, the court said, "Both were immature and young… After the acquittal, by passage of time, the members of the two families must have buried their hatchet if any arisen on account of the incident."

Without sentencing the accused any further, the bench said, "We hold that sentence already undergone by the accused would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice."