Rape | Absence Of Injuries On The Person Of The Prosecutrix Is By Itself No Ground To Infer Consent

The Supreme Court has underscored that a lack of injuries on a sexual assault victim does not imply consent. This pivotal ruling came from Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan as they reviewed an appeal concerning a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision. This decision had convicted the respondents under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.

 

The case dates back to July 8, 1989, when six men were accused of sexual assault. Initially, the Sessions Court acquitted all six, citing insufficient evidence of struggle or injury, which suggested to them that the intercourse might have been consensual. However, the State of Himachal Pradesh appealed, leading to a High Court retrial for gang rape. By then, one accused had died, leaving five to be retried based on earlier evidence and cross-examinations. Again, the Sessions Court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting them and imposing a sentence of three years, which was less than the ten-year minimum prescribed at the time.

 

The defense argued that the High Court's decision to remand, rather than convict after the first acquittal, was significant. They also noted that at the time of the incident, consensual sex with a woman over sixteen was not illegal. On the other hand, the State's counsel criticized the Sessions Court's approach and the High Court's leniency, emphasizing the seriousness of the gang rape charge.

 

In its judgment, the Supreme Court stressed that convictions cannot be based solely on the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Cr. PC. These statements must be considered alongside the prosecution's evidence. The accused had claimed that their relationships with the prosecutrix were consensual and involved payment for sex. However, medical evidence showed inflammation in the victim's private parts, and the absence of injuries did not imply consent.

 

The Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the defense's narrative, particularly their failure to assert consent during cross-examination. The defense's claims about ongoing relationships and payment for sex were not presented to the prosecutrix. The Court found the circumstances of the assault and the prosecutrix's testimony credible, dismissing minor contradictions.

 

In upholding the prosecutrix's account of forcible sexual intercourse, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of considering the full context of evidence in such serious cases. This ruling is a reminder that the absence of physical injuries does not negate the trauma and violation of sexual assault.