New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that prior consent for a sexual act will not extend to future occasions, even if the individuals were previously involved in a consensual relationship, the Tribune reported on Thursday, January 27.
Justice Vivek Puri noted that “no means no”, even if it comes after an initial yes and said, “The withdrawal of the consent effectively nullifies the earlier consent and forcibly sexual intercourse becomes non-consensual, attracting the penal provisions of Section 376 [which deals with rape] of the Indian Penal Code.”
Justice Puri’s remarks came in a case where a 35-year-old female divorcee has accused a man, whom she was once in a live-in relationship with, of having sexual intercourse with her against her will.
The counsel for the accused, who has filed a petition in the case, had argued that the woman’s case was registered with the “oblique motive of extortion out of a failed love affair” and tried to build a case on the basis of the two parties’ previous consensual relationship.
Also read: How the Court Relied on a TV Interview to Acquit Bishop in Kerala Nun Case
Justice Puri responded by saying that while it is true that the law acknowledges live-in relationships, the law also acknowledges women’s rights to have sexual relationships of their own accord.
“Even on the assumption that if two persons previously had consensual sexual relationship for any reason whatsoever, the consent of prior sexual acts will not extend to future occasions. It cannot be construed as a circumstance to conclude that the accused gets a right to perpetually exploit the prosecutrix,” the Tribune quoted Justice Puri as saying.
The accused, in a supposed effort to strengthen the claim that a live-in relationship precludes the consideration of consent, submitted photographs of the two parties to the court.
However, the court noted that the photographs serve only to prove that the two parties are known to each other but cannot be considered prima facie to show that the prosecutrix had been a consenting party.
Moreover, Justice Puri said noted that there was no mention of consent in the FIR that the woman had filed, which alleged forcible sexual intercourse. He also noted that while the investigation was complete and a challan had been filed, the prosecutrix was yet to be examined and charges could only be filed once that was done.
In light of the court’s observations on consent and its subsequent revocation mentioned above, Justice Puri dismissed the accused’s petition.