Helplessness within the face of inevitable compulsion can’t be thought of as consent, Kerala High Court has stated whereas contemplating an attraction filed by a rape convict.
Justice R Narayana Pisharadi, in his order stated merely as a result of the sufferer was in love with the accused, it can’t be presumed that she had given consent for sexual activity.
Court stated there’s a gulf of distinction between consent and submission and each consent includes a submission however the converse doesn’t comply with.
“Helplessness in the face of inevitable compulsion cannot be considered to be consent as understood in law. Exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and the moral effect of the act is required for consent. Merely for the reason that the victim was in love with the accused, it cannot be presumed that she had given consent for sexual intercourse,” the court docket stated in its order dated October 31.
The court docket was listening to an attraction by 26-year-old Syam Sivan, towards his conviction and subsequent sentencing by trial court docket beneath numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code together with part 376, which offers with rape.
The accused had in 2013 taken a woman, with whom he had a relation, to Mysore and had sexual activity along with her with out her consent, the court docket famous in its judgement. It 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 made a threat that if she did not go with him, he would commit suicide in front of her house,” the court docket famous.
The court docket stated even whether it is assumed that, on subsequent events, she didn’t resist the act of the accused, it can’t be discovered that it was along with her consent that the accused had sexual activity along with her.
“It can only be found that it was a passive submission made by the victim girl under unavoidable circumstances as she had no other option,” the court docket stated within the judgement.
The court docket, nevertheless, put aside the conviction beneath the POCSO act because the age of the sufferer was not proved.
Meanwhile, it stated the act of the accused clearly constitutes the offences punishable beneath Section 366 and 376 of the IPC (Abduction and rape).