Facts of the Case:

In this case the Bombay High Court was hearing appeals by two men, convicted for gang rape under Section 376D of the IPC. The incident occurred in November 2014, when the victim, estranged from her husband and living with another man, was gang-raped by the accused along with a juvenile. The convicts objected to her live-in relationship, attacked her and others, forced her to consume alcohol, and later raped her in a secluded area.

Contention of the Petitioners (Appellants):

The appellants challenged their conviction, arguing that the victim had previously been romantically involved with one of them and implied that the past relationship indicated consent. They also attempted to question the victim’s character and moral standing based on her live-in relationship and previous marriage.

Contention of the Respondent (State):

The State contended that the evidence overwhelmingly proved non-consensual sexual assault, regardless of the victim’s personal relationships. It argued that prior intimacy did not imply future or continued consent, and the violent nature of the incident, including physical assaults and coercion, proved the offence of gang rape beyond doubt.

Court’s Observation:

The Division Bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and MW Chandwani delivered a strong rebuke to the notion that a woman’s sexual history impacts her credibility or implies consent. “A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO.’ There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman’s so-called ‘immoral activities’.”

“A woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had in wake of Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act.”

The Court also emphasized that “Sexual intercourse on one hand gives pleasure to the participants including a woman but if it is done without consent of the woman, it is an assault on her body, mind and privacy.”

Referring to the nature of the crime, the judges noted that rape is “the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society,” and that the evidence demonstrated Wasim’s “jealousy and controlling behavior.”

Court’s Order:

The Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape under Section 376D IPC, confirming that the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence from life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, considering factors such as no grievous injury to the victim, the reformation potential of the convicts, and one accused’s parental responsibilities.

Similarly, the sentence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was reduced from 20 to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The juvenile accused was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice system.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai