In Saturday’s ruling, Justice R Narayana Pisharadi stated that helplessness in the presence of pressure cannot be interpreted as agreement. He went on to say that there is a big difference between consent and submission and that every consent entails a submission, but not the other way around.
‘Exercise of intellect based on understanding of the significance and moral effect of the conduct is essential for permission,’ the court order stated.
The appeal was filed by Syam Sivan, 26, who was convicted and punished by a trial court under numerous sections of the IPC, including section 376, which deals with rape.
According to the PTI report, the court noted in its judgement that in 2013, Syam took a girl he was dating to Mysuru in Karnataka and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. It was also stated that the convict sold all of her gold jewels, took her to Goa, and raped her again, threatening to commit suicide in front of her house if she did not accompany him.
The court further noted that even if the victim did not resist Syam on certain instances, this cannot be regarded as her permission for sexual intercourse, but rather a ‘passive submission…under inescapable circumstances’ because she had ‘no other option.’
The Kerala high court, however, overturned the trial court’s conviction under the POCSO statute handed down to the prisoner since the victim’s age could not be determined. However, according to Justice Pisharadi’s judgement, the actions of the accused obviously constitute offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC (Abduction and rape).
The Kerala high court’s decision comes two days after the Supreme Court overturned the Bombay high court’s controversial verdict, which said that skin-to-skin contact was required to punish persons accused of sexually assaulting youngsters.
In the case of touching a 12-year-old child, the Bombay High Court cleared a man of sexual assault charges because there was no ‘skin-to-skin’ contact.
Post Your Comments