IF A WOMAN STATES BEFORE THE COURT THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT, THE COURT SHALL PRESUME THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT - DELHI COURT

17th March 2021

Recently, a rape case has been registered against 28yrs old TC anchor Varun Hiremath (State vs Hiremath). Hiremath applied for anticipatory bail on the ground that he had been falsely involved in the case as it was consensual. He further submitted that the prosecutrix came from Pune to meet him in Delhi; they checked in the hotel by showing identity documents. This indicates she was interested in going to the room to have a sexual relationship.

The 22 yr old prosecutrix argued that the accused booked a double occupancy room without informing her, and she showed identity documents on account of Covid 19 guidelines.

The Court took into consideration their subsequent chat, where the accused apologised for his acts. Although they were in a " loving relationship" and had sexually explicit talks, the same was not relevant given sec 53 A of the Evidence Act. Further, The Court, in the view of sec 144 of the Evidence Act, observed, " If a woman states before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. In such circumstances, sec 144 of the Act cannot be ignored although this has to be at the time of trial evidence collected by the IO till today in the form of complaint, and WhatsApp, Instagram chats and written transcripts are sufficient to say that this is not a case where such presumption appears to be absent".

The Court rejected the Bail accordingly.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal

PC: Bar bench