The Kerala High Court, whereas contemplating an enchantment filed by a rape convict, has held that helplessness within the face of unavoidable compulsion can’t be construed as consent.
Justice R Narayan Pishardi, in his order, held that merely as a result of the sufferer was in love with the accused, it can’t be presumed that she had consented to sexual activity.
The Court noticed that there’s a hole between consent and submission and that each consent features a submission however doesn’t comply with negotiation.
“Helplessness in the face of compulsive compulsion cannot be construed as consent as is understood in law. Consent requires the use of intelligence based on knowledge of the importance and moral implications of the act. Merely because the victim was in love with the accused, it cannot be presumed that she had given consent for sexual intercourse,” the court docket mentioned in its order dated October 31.
The court docket was listening to 26-year-old Shyam Sivan’s enchantment, looking for his conviction and subsequent sentencing by the trial court docket underneath varied sections of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which offers with rape.
The court docket, in its judgment, mentioned that the accused had taken a woman to Mysore in 2013 with whom he had an affair and had intercourse together with her with out her consent. It was additionally famous that the accused offered all her gold ornaments after which took her to Goa the place he raped her once more.
“Her evidence shows that he had threatened to commit suicide in front of his house if she did not accompany him,” the court docket mentioned.
The court docket noticed that even whether it is assumed that she didn’t oppose the act of the accused on subsequent events, it can’t be discovered that the accused had sexual relations together with her.
“It can only be found that it was submitted passively by the aggrieved girl under unavoidable circumstances as she had no other option,” the court docket mentioned within the judgment.
However, the court docket quashed the conviction underneath the POCSO Act because the age of the sufferer was not proved.
Meanwhile, it mentioned that the act of the accused is clearly an offense punishable underneath sections 366 and 376 of the IPC (kidnapping and rape).
,
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
