‘Not resisting rape, no violence marks doesn’t make the act consensual’: Patna High Court
While hearing a 2015 rape case, the Patna High Court said that even when there is no visible resistance by victim, it doesn't make the act consensual.
According to a recent judgment by the Patna High Court, if a woman does not have any visible injury marks or does not fight back during sexual violence, it doesn’t mean that she was indulging in consensual sex.
While hearing a petition against a lower court order, the Patna HC bench said that if a woman is not resisting rape, it doesn’t mean that the act is consensual and not punishable. If the statements of the victim are found believable by the court, then the act will be considered non-consensual.
The Patna High Court bench delivered this judgment while hearing a case filed in 2015, where a woman was dragged into a room, pinned on the floor, and raped. The court said that it cannot be called consensual sex between two adults if the “version of the rape survivor is found reliable and trustworthy by the trial court.”
The court bench reiterated the terms of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states that consent must be in the “form of an unequivocal voluntary agreement showing a willingness to participate in the sexual act.”
While delivering the judgment, Justice AM Badar said, “The proviso clause of Section 375 IPC makes it clear that only because a woman does not physically resist the act of penetration, it cannot be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.”
This judgment was delivered by the Patna HC bench on the bases of a case filed by a woman who was raped inside her own home by the accused, who had dragged her across the room, pinned her on the floor, and pressed on her mouth to keep her silent.
The woman was a daily wage labourer in a brick kiln in the Jamui village and was promised her wages at the end of the day. The same night, she was raped by the accused, who had come to her house asking about the whereabouts of her son.