Home
2 SCC 143." subheadline="" font="" font_weight="" font_size="" color_scheme="" color="" align="" url="" target="_self" html_tag="h1" size="extralarge" dash="" el_id="" el_class="" el_style="" supertitle_position=""]

 

Facts

Mathura, along with the people she worked for and Ashok, with whom she was in a relationship, had come to the police station after her brother filed a complaint against the three of them for kidnapping Mathura. After the Head constable had left, one police constable, Ganpat, asked her to stay in the police station and asked the others to wait outside. After this, he took her to the latrine and raped her. Ganpat then left after which Tukaram came and fondled her private parts, but was too intoxicated to rape her.

Issue

Whether absence of physical resistance signifies consent?

Rule

Section 376 IPC, Section 354 IPC.

Analysis

The Court, delving into the matter of consent in the given case, asserted that it was not possible for the girl to be under fear as she was taken away by Ganpat when she was walking away with her brother. The Court pointed out that the fact that she did not try to shake off her hand, when she was around her family, confirms that the consent was not given out of fear and was not passive. The Court also highlighted that proof beyond reasonable doubt always has to be given by the prosecution.

Conclusion

Since the prosecution failed to prove that the sexual intercourse amounted to rape, the appellants were acquitted.

https://i0.wp.com/www.legalmaxim.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/lexim-logo.png?fit=1421%2C346&ssl=1
68 Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Rd, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
official@legalmaxim.in

Follow us:

Copyright © Legal Maxim 2020

error: Content is protected !!