'When a woman says no, it means no': Bombay HC upholds conviction of 3 men for gang rape

The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of three men for raping one of their partners, ruling that when a woman says no, it means no, and there can be no presumption of consent based on her past sexual activities.

“No means no”, was the point stressed by the bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and MW Chandwani in its May 6 judgement, refusing to accept the attempt made by the convicts to question the morals of the survivor.

Also read: Why Judiciary must recognise the right to refusal in sexual offences

Sexual intercourse when done without the consent of a woman is an assault on her body, mind, and privacy, said the court, terming rape the most morally and physically-reprehensible crime in society.

No ambiguity when a woman says 'no'

“A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO’. There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman's so-called immoral activities,” HC said.

The court refused to completely quash the conviction of the three persons but reduced their sentence to 20 years in jail from the previous life imprisonment.

Also read: Allahabad High Court blames rape survivor, says she 'invited trouble'

In their appeal, the trio had claimed that the woman was initially involved with one of them but later got into a live-in relationship with another man.

The incident

In November 2014, the three barged into the survivor’s house, assaulted her live-in partner, and forcibly took her to a nearby deserted spot where they raped her.

The bench in its judgement said that even if a woman was an estranged wife and lived with another man without getting divorced from her husband, a person cannot force the woman to have intercourse with him without her consent.

Also read: SC stays HC's 'grabbing woman's breast not rape' ruling, slams judge

The bench said even though the survivor and one of the convicts were in a relationship in the past, any sexual act without her consent would amount to rape if she was not willing to have intercourse with him and the other accused.

'Woman's character not related to her past'

“A woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto (by the fact itself) give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances. A woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had,” the court said.

The court said sexual violence unlawfully encroaches on the privacy of a woman, and deprives her of her dignity.

Also read: Allahabad HC: Grabbing breasts, breaking minor's pyjama string does not amount to rape

“Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed as a crime involving aggression. It is a violation of her right to privacy. Rape is the most morally and physically-reprehensible crime in society, as it is an assault on the body, mind, and privacy of the victim,” the HC said.

The court also upheld the trio’s conviction for the assault of the survivor’s live-in partner.

(With agency inputs)