Court shall imply that lady failed to consent if she states thus, control the urban center supreme court whereas rejecting the preceding bail application to a TV anchor defendant of rape.
Case of the Prosecutrix
The 22-year-old prosecutrix contended that simply going into a bedchamber doesn’t imply that she consented to interact in sexual activities. it had been explicit that the defendant engaged a double – occupancy area and he or she provided the defendant along with her identities assumptive that identical ar needed as per Covid- nineteen tips.
Case of the defendant
The defendant prayed for the grant of bail on the bottom that case is incorrectly made-up because the act was fully accordant in nature. it had been additional contended that the prosecutrix came to fulfill the defendant from Pune to Delhi and checked in a very bedchamber with him.
Further it had been added that the actual fact that she herself gave the identity documents that in itself is a sign that she was interested to see during a exceedingly|in a very} building and pay personal time with the defendant and develop an intimate relationship with consent. it had been conjointly educated to the Court that the defendant and also the prosecutrix had history of sexual relations.
Observation of Court
The Court determined that the prosecutrix in her criticism similarly as her statement below Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically denied that the act was accordant in nature and conjointly explicit that she wasn’t able to use identical quantity of force in stopping the defendant as she was in worry of being obtaining cut because of his powerful behavior.
The conversations between the parties portraying the defendant being sorry his acts were conjointly taken into thought. within the words of the Court:
“This question of treating “no” as “yes” let alone the conduct of the prosecutrix and also the defendant could be a matter of trial, only prosecutrix can get an opportunity to record her testimony. however at this stage of preceding bail application, this court cannot lose the main target of the facts of this case and ingredients of the commission of the offence below Section 375/376 IPC. Despite of the actual fact that that defendant and prosecutrix were having a caressive relationship and that they indulged in sexual express talks that’s conjointly not aiming to build any distinction at this stage visible of section fifty three (a) of Indian proof Act.
The section provides that proof of character or previous statutory offence experiences not relevant in sure cases as well as the offence below Section 376 and this provision specially shows that previous sexual experiences with someone shall not be relevant on the difficulty of such consent or quality of consent.”
The Court additional determined that:
“the woman’s previous sexual experiences with the journalist haven’t any referring to the case whatever. The previous conduct and consent can not be as sumedas silent consent and also the same is braced by Section 114 of the Indian proof Act”.