The Bombay High court made it clear that even if there was a previous relationship, that doesn’t mean future sexual activity is allowed without consent.
Mumbai, May 8 — The Bombay High Court has clearly ruled that “No means no“, even if a woman had past relationships or lived with a man without marriage. The court strongly stated that a woman’s past or private life cannot be used to assume she gave consent for sexual activity.
The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Suryawanshi and Justice M W Chandwani, in a judgment dated May 6, refused to accept the argument of three convicts who tried to question the character and morals of the woman they were found guilty of raping. The High Court upheld their conviction, although it slightly reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years in jail.
The judges made it very clear:
“No means no.”
The court added that just because a woman has had relationships in the past does not mean she gave permission for any future sexual activity.
“There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman’s so-called immoral activities.”
Brief Facts:
The case goes back to November 2014, when the three men broke into the survivor’s home, attacked her live-in partner, and then forcibly took her to a nearby deserted area and raped her. One of the accused was in a relationship with the woman earlier, but she later began living with another man in a live-in arrangement.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Consent for Physical Relations Doesn’t Allow Misuse of Private Moments
While hearing their appeal, the convicts claimed that the woman had been in relationships before and had stayed with another man without marrying him, suggesting that this could imply consent. But the court firmly rejected this line of reasoning. It said that even if a woman lives with another man without divorce or marriage, no one can force her into sex without her agreement.
“Sexual intercourse when done without the consent of a woman is an assault on her body, mind and privacy,” the court declared.
The court made it clear that even if there was a previous relationship, that doesn’t mean future sexual activity is allowed without consent.
“A woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto (by the fact itself) give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances. A woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had.”
The bench explained that rape is not just a sexual act, but a violent attack on the dignity and privacy of a woman.
“Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed as a crime involving aggression. It is a violation of her right to privacy. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim.”
The court also confirmed the conviction of the three men for assaulting the survivor’s live-in partner.
Case Title: Maksud Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 336 of 2016) and batch
View Judgement
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
