Noting that rape is basically an assault on human
rights, the Supreme Court on Monday August 03,2015 said submission to sexual assault
should not be construed as consent by the victim, but immobility caused
by sheer terror.
Quoting judicial precedents, a Bench
led by Justice Dipak Misra said in a judgment that ‘consent’ for sexual
act required “voluntary participation not only after the exercise of
intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral
quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between
resistance and assent.”
The Bench said whether there
was consent or not should only be decided by courts after careful study
of the relevant circumstances in individual cases.
The SC was looking into the case of rape of a
16-year-old girl by her uncle and a relative. Dismissing the appeals
against their conviction, the court said, in this case, the victim being
a 16-year-old, whether she gave consent or not was not relevant, and
the offence was rape.
“It needs no special emphasis
to state that once it is held that the prosecutrix [victim] is below 16
years of age, consent is absolutely irrelevant and totally meaningless,”
Justice Misra wrote in the judgment
The SC said she was in a totally helpless situation and despite her resistance, she was sexually abused.
Rejecting
a plea for a reduced jail term, Justice Misra observed in the judgment
that the gravity of the offence did not deserve this consideration from
the court.
“Regard being had to the gravity of the
offence, reduction of sentence indicating any imaginary special reason
would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law. The
perpetrators of the crime must realise that when they indulge in such an
offence, they really create a concavity in the dignity and bodily
integrity of an individual,” the judgment held.
No comments:
Post a Comment