Patna : If rape victim does not fight back or is hurt to show as evidence does not mean she consented to the sexual act, Patna High Court While hearing the petition against the order of the lower court, said.
Hearing a 2015 case where a woman was dragged into a room, pinned to the floor and raped, the high court last week said it still cannot be called consensual sex between two adults. if “the version of the rape victim is found to be “credible and credible” by the trial court.”
justice AM Badridismissing the appeal of a islam mian aka Mohammad Islam, reiterated that the contents of section 375 Indian Penal Code (IPC) stipulates that consent must be “in the form of an explicit voluntary agreement showing a willingness to participate in a sexual act”.
Justice Badar said, “The provision of section 375 of IPC makes it clear that merely because a woman does not physically oppose the act of penetration, it cannot be construed as consent to sexual activity.”
The court found no flaw in the statement of the victim, who was presented as a prosecution witness in the trial court. The victim, who was a brick kiln worker of the appellant and residing in a village in Jamui district, demanded her wages at the end of the working day on 9th April, 2015.
She was told that the payment would be made later and on the same night, when the victim was cooking food in her house, the accused came, asked the whereabouts of her son. Later he dragged her to another room and after closing the door, pressed her to keep quiet and raped her.
Villagers came to rescue the victim when she raised an alarm. The next morning an FIR was registered and he identified the crime scene in front of the police.
The High Court further observed that the victim had stated in her cross-examination that her husband was out of the station to earn a livelihood and that her son was only four years old.
“Therefore, in such circumstances, it may not be possible for him to oppose the criminal act of the appellant,” the court said.
The court upheld the trial court’s decision where the appellant was convicted of rape and criminal trespass under sections 376 and 452 of the IPC respectively and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs 10,000. fine) for rape and two years rigorous imprisonment for criminal trespass.
However, the accused was acquitted of the charges of voluntarily causing hurt (IPC Section 323 IPC), criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) and offenses under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
FacebookTwitterinstagramKu APPyoutube