Friendly ties don’t imply consent, Delhi HC rules in JNU rape case

Hearing a JNU rape case, the court set aside trial court remarks that implied consent, saying such observations cast aspersions on the woman’s character.

The Delhi High Court has held that a woman’s friendly relationship with the accused or her voluntary visit to his room cannot be construed as consent or serve as justification for sexual assault. 

The court said a woman’s cordial relations or voluntary visit to an accused’s hostel can’t be construed as consent, calling such reasoning legally flawed. (File photo)

A bench of justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling on September 15 while hearing a plea filed by a journalist and PhD student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), who had sought to set aside adverse observations made by a trial court in January while granting bail to the man accused of raping her. 

The proceedings stemmed from an FIR registered under Section 64 (rape) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), in which the woman alleged that the accused, a friend, had invited her to his hostel on two occasions, where he sexually assaulted her. 

The trial court had granted bail to the accused, observing that the woman had stayed at his hostel of her own free will, continued to interact with him after the first incident, and had even planned future meetings. It further noted that she had voluntarily visited his room again, implying tacit consent for sexual intercourse. 

Setting aside the observations, the High Court said that such reasoning cast unwarranted aspersions on the woman’s character and that the sessions court could not assess the probabilities of the allegations at the bail stage. 

“Concededly, no person has the right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room. Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him will not make her responsible for the sexual assault,” justice Mahajan said. 

He added, “The observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim. The probabilities of the allegations cannot be commented on in this manner as done by the learned ASJ while considering the application for bail.”