While it is commendable not to hesitate at all in attaching utmost importance to the dignity, consent and well-being of women, it is undoubtedly very refreshing, revitalizing and therefore also very reassuring to observe that no less than one of the oldest and therefore also undoubtedly one of the most reputed and magnanimous High Courts of India and therefore also has the maximum number of high courts among all the states of India i.e. the Bombay High Court, which court is situated in Goa in a very learned, laudable, historical, logical and latest judgment titled State through Canacona Police Station against Gulsher Ahmed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 6 of 2021 and cited in the neutral summons No: 2024:BHC-GOA:1465 which was pronounced on September 3, 2024 has explicitly held that a woman books a hotel room with a man and entering the room with him does not mean that she has consented to have sex with him. Without mincing words, the single judge bench, comprising Hon’ble Justice Bharat P Deshpande, underlined in very clear terms that even if the woman is supposed to have entered the room with the man, the same cannot by any stretch of the imagination. It will be considered your consent to have sexual relations. Quite right!

In simple terms, we must note that the Court was very frank, firm and forthright in holding frankly that: “There is no doubt that there is material to show that the accused and the plaintiff were instrumental in reserving the courtroom; however, that does not would be considered as consent given by the victim for the purpose of having sexual intercourse… Even if it is accepted that the victim entered the room along with the accused, the same cannot even remotely be considered as her consent to have intercourse. sexual relations.” Therefore, we see that the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court most rationally considered that it was absolutely appropriate to set aside the release order passed by the Trial Court in March 2021 by which the rape case against the accused was closed. named Gulsher Ahmed and restored the start of the trial against the accused. I don’t deny it.

At the outset, we must note that this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment, written by the Goa Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justice Bharat P Deshpande, sets the ball in motion first and foremost by establishing in the paragraph 2 that, “This Revision is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao, thereby releasing the Respondent/Accused for the offense punishable under under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of the IPC.”

It is definitely to be noted that the court very rightly envisaged in paragraph 8 that “the question before the sessions court was only with respect to framing of charges against the accused. However, the tenor of the order passed while discharged the charge The accused would clearly show that the entire burden is on the plaintiff and that she has not been believed just because she accompanied the accused and entered the courtroom Such observations of the learned Trial Court and that too at the stage of formulation. of charges are clearly beyond the scope of the provisions under which the Sessions Court is to consider the material in framing the charge against the accused.”

Note that the Court points out in paragraph 9 that “Chapter XVIII of Cr.PC deals with a trial before the Court of Session and the relevant provisions are Sections 227 and 228, which are material for the Court to consider, after receiving the statement of objections”. and on the appearance of the Accused, as to whether there are elements to file charges against the Accused or not. The text of Article 228 simply says that if a court concludes that there are grounds to presume that the Defendant has committed. Such a crime, the charge could be formulated.”

Needless to say, the Court then specifies in paragraph 10 that “it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to shift and weigh the material only with a view to forming an opinion as to whether there is any material to frame the charge, in doing so, the Court must carefully examine the charge sheet along with the statements of the Victim and other witnesses as well as the documents corroborating the prosecution case, once the Court reaches the conclusion of that exists. “If there is a serious suspicion, it is necessary to formulate the charge.”

Note that the Court notes in paragraph 11 that “The matter at hand would clearly demonstrate that the complaint was filed by the Victim immediately after the incident. The record shows that the Victim, after leaving the room, immediately called the Police When the Police arrived at the said hotel, the Complainant was taken to the Police Station and the complaint was filed. The Victim revealed in clear words that the Accused took her to a hotel under the pretext of having a meeting with a man. Agent, who was to provide him with work abroad.”

Most rationally, the Court bluntly observes paragraph 12, clarifying that “there is no doubt that there is material showing that the defendant and the plaintiff were instrumental in reserving the room; however, that would not be considered as consent”. given by the Victim for the purpose of sexual relations.”

It cannot simply be overlooked that the court reveals in paragraph 13 that “the plaintiff in her statement revealed that the defendant, after locking the room, threatened to kill her and subsequently had sexual intercourse without her consent. She stated that a Once the accused entered the bathroom, she immediately left the room and ran downstairs and then called the police by dialing the number 100.

Further, the Court reveals in para 14 that “the record shows that the accused was arrested on the same day, while the crime scene panchanama was held on the next date i.e. 03.03.2020. During said panchanama, the The room was searched and no incriminating articles were found or attached.”

Certainly one cannot lose sight of what the Court succinctly points out in paragraph 15, postulating precisely that “The Victim was subjected to a medical examination on the date of the complaint but during the night and the report is recorded in the file. The opinion of the Court The doctor says that the examination report is reserved pending the serological/biological examination reports Therefore, it cannot be said that the report does not support the prosecution’s case.

It would be worth noting that the Court reveals in paragraph 16 that: “Although the witness at the hotel revealed that the accused along with the plaintiff entered the room, there is a statement from a member of the hotel staff which clearly shows that “He saw the girl (Victim) come down crying and left the hotel directly and was calling someone. This statement fully corroborates with the content of the complaint as well as with her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC.”

Most significantly, the Court summarizes in paragraph 17 what forms the cornerstone of this remarkable judgment by postulating that “the learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly committed an error in observing that since the Victim entered the room, she consented in having sexual intercourse. The inference is clearly contrary to the stated proposition and specifically when the complaint was filed immediately after the incident Even if it is accepted that the Victim entered the room along with the Accused, the same cannot. be considered, under no circumstances, as his consent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly mixed two aspects i.e. entering a room with the Accused without any protest and secondly, giving consent to what happened in the room on the part. of the Plaintiff immediately after leaving the room and also crying, calling the Police and filing a complaint that same day demonstrate that the overt act allegedly performed in the room by the defendant was not consensual.”

Equally significant is what is then pointed out in paragraph 18 which specifically states that “The statement given by the plaintiff as well as recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC cannot be believed in the manner as done by the Sessions Court Additional and that too while passing an order to release the accused. The only task is to determine whether there is strong suspicion. If it is determined that there is material to frame a charge, it is the bounden duty of the court to frame the charge and. imprison the accused. Subsequently, the forensic laboratory report was received that confirmed the presence of semen on the Victim’s clothing.

More directly, what is worth noting here is that the Court does not mince words in pointing out in paragraph 19 that it postulates and directs that “it is a settled legal proposition that in case of violation under Section 376 of the IPC , full penetration is not at all necessary. The Trial Court has completely lost sight of the proposition stated above and arrived at a conclusion which is contrary to the record. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and set aside. material for frame a charge against the Accused. The Respondent herein for the offense punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) of the IPC, therefore, the Trial Court is directed to frame the charges against the Accused accordingly.”

Furthermore, the Court orders in paragraph 20 that “the parties will appear before the Court of First Instance on 09/26/2024 at 10:00 a.m.”

Finally, the Court concludes by holding in paragraph 21 that “the Review Request is resolved accordingly.”

In conclusion, we see that the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has made it undeniably clear that a woman entering a hotel room with a man does not imply her consent to have sexual relations. It simply cannot be denied that if a man dares to have sex with a woman without her consent, then he should be made to pay for it and face trial and if found guilty, he will be willing to spend time in prison! jail! The most notable thing in this notable case that we must keep in mind is that the woman had complained immediately and it was not after a few years or a few months or a few days that she complained. Top priority must be given to his early complaint against forced sexual relations, which is what the Goa Court has done so commendably in this important case and directed the Trial Court to frame charges against the accused. So the accused now has no choice but to face trial and prove whether the sexual relationship was consensual and if he fails, he will have to spend time in jail! Don’t deny it!