A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Anoop Chitkara of Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that that as simple a word as 'no' has become the most difficult for some men to understand.
“No does not mean yes, it does not mean that the girl is shy, it does not mean that the girl is asking a man to convince her, it does not mean that he has to keep pursuing her.”
A woman saying “no” to the intimacy or sexual involvement initiated by a man has only one specific and defined meaning that she is not open or ready for such sexual engagement, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held in a ruling recently.
A “no” is not an interpretation that the girl is shy, nor it can be construed that the girl is resisting intentionally in order to attract the male counterpart. A “no” in simple terms means no consent for sexual intercourse.
Factual Background
The survivor in the instant case had stated that she had vividly shown her unwillingness with respect to the sexual act, she said “no” clearly when the accused started touching her inappropriately.
Case of the Accused
The counsel for the accused stated that the victim herself revealed that she is friends with the accused. Therefore, if there was sexual engagement it was with the consent of the victim.
Observation of the Court
The Court, however, did not concede with the submissions presented by the accused and considered the facts presented by the prosecution that the accused had allegedly picked up the survivor on the pretext of dropping her home and diverted from the set route to an isolated place where he touched her inappropriately and threatened to force himself on her. It was also stated that the accused asked the victim to marry her and on her denial, he forced himself on her and had sexual intercourse without consent.
The survivor went home by bus and shared the incident with her mother which led to the filing of the complaint. The charges framed against the accused were that of rape under the Indian Penal Code and also offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, since the age of the survivor was 17 years.
The Court further observed that the alleged events took place in broad daylight. Therefore, it was unlikely that the survivor was questioned for coming home late compelling her to make these allegations.
“The question involved here is what prompted the girl to inform about the incident to her mother. It is not the case that she reached home late in the night or that her parents questioned her or started a search looking for her. She would have kept it discreet because, as per her version, no one had noticed them. If the sexual act was with her will, she would have not told anyone about the same and tried to conceal the same. The victim voluntarily narrated the incident to her mother, prima facie points out towards the genuineness of the incident”, the Court stated.
It was further added that it was courageous of the survivor to share the incident with her mother and later report the same to the police. Scientific conclusions pointed towards the presence of blood and semen on the survivor’s underwear, which indicated non-consensual sex. The reasoning behind the absence of injuries on the survivor’s body is because the victim cooperated with the accused in the sexual engagement.
Considering the same observations, the accused was denied bail, as in the opinion of the Judge the accused failed to make out a case of bail. However, the Court was liberal enough to give the accused another chance to file an afresh bail plea, in case there are any new circumstances or submissions to be made.
Case Details
Before: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Suresh Kumar v. State of HP
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitraka
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
