Days before the Delhi High Court redefined consent in the Mahmood Farooqui case, the Bombay High Court had held that ladies of simple prudence additionally have the privilege to state no.
The Court was hearing an application for suspension of sentence and discharge on safeguard of a man who had been indicted by a trial court of assaulting his minor niece.
The candidate was discovered liable under Section 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, and was condemned to ten years’ thorough detainment alongside a fine of Rs. 2500.
Spoken to by RN Gite, the candidate looked to be discharged on safeguard pending the interest to the trial court judgment recorded in the High Court. The reasons managed for the same incorporate the way that the candidate did not abuse the safeguard he was allowed amid the pendency of the trial and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR.
Most fundamentally, the candidate saw the way that the casualty had two beaus with whom she had sexual relations as a palliating factor. Be that as it may, Justice AM Badar was not willing to purchase this contention. He held,
“A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She had not attained consenting age.”
Justice Badar additionally went ahead to decide that being the sole winning individual from a family was not a factor for a thought of suspension of sentence. Subsequently, the Court declined to concede the convict safeguard and rejected the application.
Reference-
Bar and Bench