Absence of visible injuries during sexual assault does not imply consensual sex: Patna HC

In a significant and landmark decision, the Patna High Court in Bihar held that the absence of any visible internal or external injuries during a sexual assault did not imply that the victim engaged in consensual sex.

A bench of Justice Ananta Manohar Badar in the Patna HC on Tuesday was hearing an appeal against the lower court's ruling in the 2015 Jamui rape case. The court overturned the decision of the lower court, arguing that the presence of internal or external wounds on the victim's body is not sufficient to establish that rape occurred. The court further ruled that if it finds the victim's assertions to be credible, the act will be deemed to be against consensual sex.

Justice Badar of the Patna HC reiterated the provisions of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which state that consent must take the "form of an unequivocal voluntary agreement showing a willingness to participate in the sexual act," and made it clear that a woman's lack of physical resistance to the act of penetration cannot be regarded as consent to the sexual activity.

Absence of visible injuries does not imply consensual sex: Patna HC

The Patna HC rendered this ruling on Tuesday at a hearing involving a 2015 case in which a woman was dragged into a room, pinned to the floor, and sexually assaulted. The bench of Justice Ananta Manohar Badar stated that the act cannot be called consensual sex between two adults if the "version of the rape survivor is found reliable and trustworthy by the trial court". 

The High Court was hearing an alleged rape case wherein a victim who worked as a day labourer for a Jamui brick kiln was sexually assaulted by the owner. According to the reports, the victim alleged that she demanded her wage from the brick kiln owner who had agreed to pay her salary at the end of the day. On the same night, the owner allegedly went to her house and sexually assaulted her.

While delivering the significant judgment, Justice AM Badar of Patna HC said, “The provision clause of Section 375 IPC makes it clear that only because a woman does not physically resist the act of penetration, it cannot be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.”