The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman booking a hotel room with a man and entering it does not automatically imply that she has consented to sexual intercourse. The judgment overturned a trial court’s earlier decision, which had discharged a rape case against the accused, Gulsher Ahmed.
Justice Bharat P Deshpande, presiding over the case, emphasized that just because the woman booked and entered the room, it cannot be assumed she gave consent for sexual activities. He pointed out that consent must be explicitly given and cannot be inferred from actions like booking a room together.
The court’s decision came after reviewing a 2020 case where the accused had reportedly lured the woman to the hotel under the pretense of discussing a job opportunity abroad. Once inside, the woman claimed that the accused threatened her and then sexually assaulted her. Despite the trial court ruling that the woman’s entry into the room implied consent, the High Court rejected this reasoning.
In its ruling, the High Court explained that the mere act of entering a hotel room with a man does not mean a woman has agreed to sexual relations. The court noted that the trial court had confused two separate issues: the woman’s willingness to enter the room and her consent to what happened inside the room.
The survivor, in her statement, explained that she fled the room and called the police after the incident. This swift reaction, along with corroborating statements from hotel staff, further proved that the sexual act was not consensual.
The court found that the trial judge made a critical error by suggesting that the woman’s actions implied consent. As a result, the High Court overturned the trial court’s discharge of the case and reinstated the trial against the accused under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
This ruling reinforces the principle that consent must be explicit and cannot be inferred simply from circumstances like booking a hotel room together. The High Court’s decision is an important reminder that sexual consent requires clear, affirmative agreement from both parties, regardless of the setting.
Case Title: [State through Canacon Police Station v. Gulsher Ahmed]
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
