Ambika Bhardwaj
Published On: December 28, 2021 at 17:50 IST
A Victim’s absence of violent opposition does not constitute consent, according to the Madras High Court.
The Court stated in its Order that “the mere lack of a valiant and aggressive action on the part of the Victim definitely does not amount to consent,” as Justice D Bharathy described that one must step into the Victim’s shoes and see the episode from her perspective.
The Order was issued in response to an appeal from Sessions Judge Tiruvannamalai, who had affirmed the Trial Court’s order convicting the Petitioner under Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of the Indian Penal Code and enacting a Sentence of seven years stringent Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
The Accused claimed that he and the Victim were having a physical relationship and when her brother, who had a grudge against the Accused, happened to see them, he compelled the Victim to file an untrue Complaint.
According to the submission, the Victim did not make any significant attempt to rescue herself from the Accused, and neither did she raise any alarm, and thus the conduct was done with consent.
Dismissing the argument, the Court mentioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Rao Harnarain Singh and others v. State, in which it was stated that “every consent includes a submission, but the converse doesn’t really follow, and a simple act of submission does not entail consent.”
In this case, Justice Chakravarthy believed that the clinical evidence on record disproved the Victim’s consensual submission.
Aside from verifying the Conviction Order, the Court also addressed the Sentence. The Accused had requested the Court’s authority to impose a Sentence less than the minimum for particular reasons.
It was claimed that the event occurred 19 years ago, when the Accused was 29 years old, he is now 48 years old, married, and the father of two kids. It was also stated that the Victim was no longer alive, the Court was also informed that the Accused had become an alcoholic, was experiencing withdrawal symptoms, and was undergoing ongoing treatment.
Even so, the Judge was unable to intervene on the issue of sentence. Nonetheless, he noted that even if the Accused had not committed the Crime, both parties lives in the village would have been peaceful.