Paridhi Arya
Published on June 27, 2022 at 15:36 IST
The Single Judge Bench of Justice AM Badar held that non resistance on part of the rape survivor physically does not lead to the conclusion that she consented to the sexual intercourse while rejecting the argument that there were no injuries on the body of the survivor which shows that she did not resisted the act and consented to it.
The Court held, “The prosecutrix is a married woman having a son aged about 4 years. She was pitted against an adult male in the night hours at her own house.”
“In such situation, it might not be possible for her to offer resistance to the act of the accused. Moreover, mere non offering of resistance cannot amount to consent.”
The appeal was filed against the order of Session Court. Appellant was the owner of brick klin where survivor was the labourer. The Survivor asked for her wages and appellant denied stating that he will give next day.
When she was cooking in her home near the village of appellant he entered his house, dragged her to bedroom and raped her there.
When she cried out loud villagers came to her rescue and caught the appellant. Later, they tied him with a tree and lodged FIR.
The Bench of Session Court found that victim’s testimony reliable and corroborated with the other witness and sentenced ten years imprisonment to the appellant under Sections 376, 452, 323 and 506 of IPC along with provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bench of Patna High Court observed that Section 375 of IPC is very clear that consent should clear and unequivocal voluntary to participate in sexual act.
The Court therefore upheld the appellant’s conviction but acquitted him from charges under Section 323, 506 of IPC and of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.