Delhi Court States Consent Cannot Be Implied From Previous Sexual Experiences

Consent Cannot Be Implied: A Delhi court rejected the bail application of television journalist in a rape case. The court stated that consent cannot be implied from the complainant’s previous experiences with the accused.

The bail application filed by the Mumbai based television journalist Varun Hiremath was dismissed by Special Judge Sanjay Khanagwal. It was said that if a woman stated in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court will presume she did not.

The woman alleged that she was raped by Hiremath at a hotel in Chanakyapuri on February 20. The counsel for the accused informed the court that there had been a history of previous sexual relationship between the accused and complainant. The defence counsel showed some WhatsApp and Instagram chats between the accused and complainant “to show the love and passion between them”.

Consent Cannot Be Implied From Previous Sexual Experiences

The defence counsel also stated before the court that the complainant disrobed herself and indulged in sexual acts with the accused and there had been no marks of resistance on her body. The judge responded by that “In her statement under Section 164 CrPC specifically denied that the act was the consented one and she has repeatedly mentioned that despite her resistance and unwillingness, accused kept on doing the same to her and she not able to resist the same.”

The court also said that the relationship between the complainant and accused and will not make a difference in view of Section 53A of Indian Evidence Act. That section states that “previous sexual experiences with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.” Thus complainant's consent cannot be implied based on previous relationship.

The court stated that “from her previous experiences with the accused the consent cannot be implied.”