New Delhi:
Prosecutors of sexual assault cases are entitled to a fair trial, but the responsibility of the criminal justice system for protecting the rights of the defendants cannot be ignored, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday as it upheld an order for the dismissal of a man accused of raping a woman for 12 years.
The court said that in rape and sexual assault cases, the conceptualization of the definition of “consent” is paramount and the issue deserves close scrutiny.
“The courts must ensure that the right to a fair trial for the complainant and the rights of the accused to be protected from a mala fide trial are safeguarded in the court’s crucial endeavor to ensure equality before the law,” said the judge. Swarana Kanta Sharma in the order.
The court affirmed a June 2018 court order, which dismissed the man under sections 376 (penalty for sexual assault) and 506 (punishment for criminal harassment) of the Indian Penal Code.
In the first information report filed in 2017, the woman claimed she had been repeatedly raped by the man since 2005. Both were married to different people at the time. The woman claimed that she had two children fathered by the man and this was proven by DNA testing.
The prosecution alleged that the woman met him on a train in 2005. They became friends and he started visiting her house. In November of that year, the man spiked her fruit juice and raped her. He later blackmailed her with obscene photos and forced her to continue the relationship. The woman claimed that she told her husband about the situation in 2017 and filed a complaint with the police.
The court ruled that it cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination that the woman gave her consent to the sexual relationship under any misunderstanding of facts or fear of injury.
At first glance, it was difficult to construe the woman’s allegations as falling within the definition of rape, as she was married to another man and was sufficiently mature and intelligent to understand the meaning and outcome of her actions, the court said.
The facts of this case point to a specific interpersonal relationship in which both parties exercised their right to sexual self-determination, the court said.
“In the changing social context and contemporary society, rigorous thought was required in making this verdict to strike a balance between the configuration of the accused’s rights and false implications because of their long consensual relationship that lasted 12 years and the the complainant’s right to a fair trial,” the court said.
The court has a duty in such circumstances to ensure that a balance is maintained between the established law on sexual assault while taking into account the standards of equality of the complainant and the accused, the judge said.
“Undoubtedly, in cases of rape, depending on the facts of each case, it cannot be said that consent can be inferred or proven by passivity or silence alone on the part of the complainant. However, continued consent, as in the present, without any whisper of complaint helps court in consent analysis,” it said.