AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2798 ::2000 AIR SCW 3095 ::2001 Cri LJ (NOC) 31 ::2000 CriAppR(SC) 490 ::(2000) 3 CurCriR 136 ::2000 (3) CurCriR 138 ::(2000) 29 AllCriR 2175 ::2000 CriLR(SC&MP) 731 ::2000 CriLR(SC&MP) 228 ::2000 (7) SCC 224 ::2000 SCC(Cri) 1331 ::(2000) 2 RecCriR 529 ::2000 (3) RecCriR 752 ::(2000) 6 Scale 89 ::2000 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 731 ::2000 (2) AndhLT(Cri) 277 SC ::2000 CalCriLR 482 ::(2000) 3 BLJ 766 ::2001 (2) BLJR 834 ::2000 (3) ChandCriC 4 ::(2000) 3 EastCriC 1880 ::(2001) 1 AllCriLR 61 ::(2000) 1 MPLJ 459 ::(2000) 4 Pat LJR 108 ::2000 (3) SCJ 283 ::2000 (3) Crimes 179 ::2000 (3) LRI 825 ::2000 (5) Supreme 653 ::2000 (3) EastCriC 1048 ::2000 (41) AllCriC 559 ::(2000) SC Cr R 937 ::2000 (8) SRJ 218 ::(2000) 9 JT 408 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Himachal Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. S. Anand, R. C. Lahoti, K. G. Balakrishnan , JJJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.375— Rape - Consent - Submission of body by prosecutrix under fear of terror - Cannot be construed as consented sexual act - Consent is to be ascertained only on careful study of all relevant circumstances - Evidence on record showing that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and resisted sexual onslaught on her - Corroboration by medical evidence - Acquittal of accused on ground that there was consent on part of prosecutrix - Liable to be set aside. Cri. M.P. (M) No. 1089 of 1995, D/- 5-12-1995 (Him Pra), Reversed. Submission of the body under the fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of S. 375 required voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistence and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.(Para 12) In the instant case the medical evidence strengthened by the family history record showed that age of the presecutrix at the time of occurrence was about 14 years. Therefore, finding by Sessions Court that prosecutrix was above the age of sixteen was unsupported by evidence. Further it was proved from ....