No means no: High court affirms sexual act without woman’s nod is rape | Nagpur News

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has firmly asserted a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, stating that any sexual act after a woman refuses constitutes rape, regardless of prior relationships or perceived morality. This ruling upheld the conviction of three men in a 2014 gang rape case in Chandrapur, emphasizing that a woman’s past or character is irrelevant in determining consent, reinforcing that ‘No’ means ‘No’.

NAGPUR: In a powerful reaffirmation of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that once a woman refuses to engage in sexual activity, any act thereafter amounts to rape, irrespective of her past relationship with the accused or her perceived morality.“A woman who says ‘No’ means ‘No’. There exists no further ambiguity. It is an offence if sexual intercourse is done without the consent of a woman,” stated the division bench of Justice Nitin Suryawanshi and Mahendra Chandwani, while upholding the conviction of three men in the 2014 gang rape in Chandrapur.The court was hearing appeals filed by Wasim Khan, Sheikh Kadir, and a juvenile, all sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Information Technology Act. The woman was abducted, sexually assaulted at multiple locations, and left traumatised.

The judges rejected arguments based on the woman’s prior intimacy with Wasim, her live-in relationship with another man, and her marital status. “Even if she was in an intimate relationship with Wasim before entering into a live-in relationship, a person cannot force a woman to have intercourse without her consent,” the court noted. “Her morals or her past do not negate her right to say No.”Citing Section 375 of Indian Penal Code and Section 53A of Indian Evidence Act, the court underscored that a woman’s character or number of sexual partners she had are legally irrelevant in assessing consent. “Sexual intercourse, when consensual, may give pleasure to both. But if it is done without consent, it is an assault on her body, mind, and privacy,” the bench observed.Describing rape as “the ravishment of a woman without her consent by force, fear or fraud,” the judges said the crime is not merely physical, but deeply invasive & dehumanising. “It objectifies a woman & shakes the core of her being,” they wrote.The court also addressed the evidentiary concerns raised by the defence. Though the tape containing videos of the crime lacked Section 65B certificate (which authenticates electronic records), the judges ruled this was not fatal to the prosecution, given the overall consistency of the survivor’s testimony and corroborating evidence. They emphasised that rape can be established even without physical injuries or presence of semen.Upholding the Chandrapur sessions court judgment, the High Court concluded that consent cannot be implied, presumed, or overridden. “A woman’s right to refuse is absolute. Her dignity & autonomy must be respected in every circumstance,” the court said.