‘DRUNK WOMAN’S CONSENT INVALID’
Bombay HC says that “a woman, when intoxicated, is incapable of giving a free and conscious consent to a sexual relationship.” Such consent, if given, will be considered invalid.
HC SAYS THAT A WOMAN, WHEN INTOXICATED IS ‘INCAPABLE OF GIVING A FREE AND CONSCIOUS CONSENT’ TO A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP
The Bombay high court on Friday held that an assent given by a woman while being in an intoxicated state cannot be considered a valid consent for sexual relationship.
The court held that “a woman, when intoxicated is incapable of giving a free and conscious consent to a sexual relationship.” The court ruled that in such a circumstance, even if the woman consents to a sexual relationship, such consent will not be considered valid or an “excuse for committing rape.”
The HC said when a woman says “no” to sexual intercourse even once, it must signify that she is unwilling. Similarly, when she says “yes, this yes must be free and unambiguous” for the incident to not amount as rape.
“Not every ‘Yes’ is covered as valid consent defined under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The term ‘without a woman’s consent’ has a wider meaning and covers a broader area of her wish to have sexual intercourse,” said Justice Mridula Bhatkar, adding that “silence, or uncertainty” in itself, cannot demonstrate consent.
Justice Bhatkar made the ruling while hearing the bail application filed by a Pune resident, accused of gang-raping one of his colleagues with the help of two accomplices.
The petitioner had argued that on the night of the incident the woman had consumed after which he took her to a friend’s flat. He said that the woman then consented to them having sexual intercourse.
The victim on the other hand, had denied having consumed alcohol knowingly. She had instead said that the petitioner had spiked her drinks and that she had lost consciousness after which he brought her to the flat.
Though Justice Bhatkar observed that based on statements of the waiter at the restaurant , it was clear that there were some discrepancies in the victim’s statements, the petitioner could not be granted any benefits due to the same.
“The simple question is that even if the victim was drunk and could not even walk, why the petitioner did not drive her to her house instead of taking her to his friend’s flat. Even if the victim did not disclose that she had had drinks, this doesn’t mean that her entire statement is false. Her post-rape condition suggests that she did not want to have sexual intercourse and if at all she had consented to it, the said consent was not valid,” Justice Bhatkar said while rejecting the petitioner’s bail plea.
She however, granted bail to two of his friends who were co-accused in the case.