Sexual Assault And Consent
Sexual assault laws are primarily concerned with the presence or absence of consent. Consent must be:
Freely given
Informed
Capable of being withdrawn at any time
Not obtained by force, coercion, fraud, or intimidation
1. State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1959) – India
Key Issue: Lack of consent in sexual assault
Facts:
The accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim clearly protested, but the accused ignored the refusal.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that consent obtained under threat or without voluntary agreement is invalid.
The absence of resistance alone is not proof of consent; the focus is on whether consent was freely given.
Legal Principle:
Consent must be voluntary.
Sexual intercourse without consent constitutes rape or sexual assault, irrespective of victim resistance.
2. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) – India
Key Issue: Consent and intoxication
Facts:
The accused had sexual intercourse with a woman who was heavily intoxicated, rendering her incapable of giving valid consent.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot give valid consent if incapable of understanding the nature of the act due to intoxication.
Sexual assault under these circumstances is categorically illegal.
Legal Principle:
Mental capacity and awareness are essential for valid consent.
Consent must be informed and voluntary, not impaired by intoxication or mental incapacity.
3. Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) – India
Key Issue: Sexual assault on minors under 18
Facts:
The case dealt with sexual activity involving minors between 16–18 years. The issue was whether consent of a minor is legally valid.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court held that children below 18 cannot give legal consent to sexual activity, even if they “agree.”
Sexual activity with minors constitutes statutory rape, regardless of apparent consent.
Legal Principle:
Age of consent cannot be waived.
Protection of minors is paramount under the law.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2019) – India
Key Issue: Consent obtained under deception or fraud
Facts:
The accused misled the victim by falsely claiming he would marry her and then sexually assaulted her.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court ruled that consent obtained by fraud or deceit is not valid consent.
The act constitutes sexual assault or rape under the Indian Penal Code.
Legal Principle:
Consent must be informed and honest.
Deception or false promises vitiate consent.
5. R v. Olugboja (1981) – United Kingdom
Key Issue: Consent and submission
Facts:
The accused threatened the victim, and she submitted to intercourse without actively resisting.
Court’s Findings:
The House of Lords held that submission is not the same as consent.
Fear, intimidation, or coercion nullifies consent.
Legal Principle:
Consent must be freely given; mere submission under pressure does not count.
Fear or intimidation invalidates sexual consent.
6. R v. Bree (2007) – United Kingdom
Key Issue: Consent under partial intoxication
Facts:
The complainant consumed alcohol voluntarily but became too intoxicated to make decisions. Sexual intercourse occurred.
Court’s Findings:
Voluntary intoxication can affect capacity to consent, even if initial agreement existed.
Sexual activity without clear capacity is considered sexual assault.
Legal Principle:
Consent requires mental and cognitive ability to agree.
Intoxication can render consent invalid.
7. Doe v. Commonwealth (Virginia, USA, 1997)
Key Issue: Consent and coercion
Facts:
The accused used threats and intimidation to coerce sexual acts from the victim.
Court’s Findings:
Consent obtained by threats or intimidation is null and void.
The court emphasized power dynamics and coercion as factors invalidating consent.
Legal Principle:
Coercion or threat vitiates consent.
True consent must be voluntary and free from pressure.
8. Sheila v. State of Karnataka (2014) – India
Key Issue: Consent in marital context
Facts:
A woman alleged rape by her husband. The legal question was whether consent within marriage is always presumed.
Court’s Findings:
Supreme Court ruled that marital consent cannot be presumed automatically.
Non-consensual sexual acts within marriage constitute rape under Section 375 IPC (as amended).
Legal Principle:
Consent is required in every sexual act, even within marriage.
Absence of consent = sexual assault/rape.
SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES ON CONSENT
Consent must be voluntary and informed (Hussainara, Om Prakash).
Consent cannot be given under fear, coercion, or threats (Olugboja, Doe v. Commonwealth).
Consent is invalid for minors (Independent Thought).
Consent is invalid if obtained by fraud or deception (Om Prakash).
Submission under pressure is not consent (Olugboja).
Consent cannot be presumed within marriage (Sheila v. Karnataka).
Intoxication or mental incapacity negates consent (Tukaram, R v. Bree).
RELATED Blog
comments