Days before the Delhi High Court redefined consent in the Mahmood Farooqui case, the Bombay High Court had held that women of easy virtue also have the right to say no..The Court was hearing an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail of a man who had been convicted by a trial court of raping his minor niece..The applicant was found guilty under Section 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2500..Represented by RN Gite, the applicant sought to be released on bail pending the appeal to the trial court judgment filed in the High Court. The reasons afforded for the same include the fact that the applicant did not misuse the bail he was granted during the pendency of the trial, and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR..Most significantly, the applicant viewed the fact that the victim had two boyfriends with whom she had sexual relations as an extenuating factor. However, Justice AM Badar was not willing to buy this argument. He held,.“A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She had not attained consenting age.”.Justice Badar also went on to rule that being the sole earning member of a family was not a factor for consideration of suspension of sentence. Hence, the Court refused to grant the convict bail, and dismissed the application..Read the judgment:
Days before the Delhi High Court redefined consent in the Mahmood Farooqui case, the Bombay High Court had held that women of easy virtue also have the right to say no..The Court was hearing an application for suspension of sentence and release on bail of a man who had been convicted by a trial court of raping his minor niece..The applicant was found guilty under Section 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2500..Represented by RN Gite, the applicant sought to be released on bail pending the appeal to the trial court judgment filed in the High Court. The reasons afforded for the same include the fact that the applicant did not misuse the bail he was granted during the pendency of the trial, and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR..Most significantly, the applicant viewed the fact that the victim had two boyfriends with whom she had sexual relations as an extenuating factor. However, Justice AM Badar was not willing to buy this argument. He held,.“A woman may be having easy virtue but that does not mean that all and sundry can take advantage of this fact. She has right to say no. Therefore, even if, it is assume that the victim was having two boy friends that does not empower the applicant to commit penetrative sexual assault on her. She had not attained consenting age.”.Justice Badar also went on to rule that being the sole earning member of a family was not a factor for consideration of suspension of sentence. Hence, the Court refused to grant the convict bail, and dismissed the application..Read the judgment:
