News Updates

Even A Woman Of Easy Virtue Has The Right To Say ‘No’: Bombay HC [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap
26 Sep 2017 1:13 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court recently rejected an application filed by an accused convicted under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

As is the case in many instances, the accused was related to the victim.

He filed an application against the said judgment of the trial court seeking suspension of sentence until the pendency of the appeal.

It was argued on behalf of the accused that the victim girl did not disclose anything about the rape committed on her when she was taken to a shelter home. It was also submitted that she had two boyfriends with whom she had sexual relations.

Finally, appearing for the accused, RN Gite submitted that his client was the only earning member of his family, hence he needs to be released on bail.

After going through all the facts of the case, Justice AM Badar noted that the victim girl was left at the mercy of her aunt as her own mother had deserted her father.

The accused is married to the victim’s aunt. It was categorically stated by the victim in her statement that he committed penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly.

Justice Badar observed: “A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assumed that the victim was having two boyfriends that does not empower the applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She had not attained consenting age. Unavailability of earning particularly in the family is not a relevant consideration for suspension of sentence.”

Thus, no bail was granted and the application was rejected.

Read the Order Here

Next Story