Intimate relationship does not mean it was consensual if woman was deceived or blackmailed: Madras HC

An intimate relationship between a man and a woman does not establish consent to sexual acts when the woman’s participation was secured through deception, coercion, intimidation or blackmail, the Madras High Court has held [Suji Vs State].

A Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K Ramakrishnan made the observation while upholding a man's conviction for repeatedly raping and blackmailing a woman using false promises of employment and marriage.

The Court affirmed the man's penalty of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

"The mere fact that the victim was subjected to repeated physical intimacy with the accused does not, by itself, establish that the relationship was consensual. The surrounding circumstances in which the acts occurred, the absence of free and informed choice, and the existence of coercion, deception, or intimidation must all be carefully evaluated before concluding that there was valid consent in the eye of law," the Court said.

Courts must examine the parties’ entire course of conduct, including how the relationship began, the accused’s intentions and whether the relationship was founded on genuine affection or calculated deception, the Bench added.

On the dangers of sharing intimate photos

The Bench also made an emotional appeal, particularly to youngsters, urging them to be careful while entering into relationships based on online communication.

It noted that the exponential growth of digital communication and social media use has created several opportunities for exploitation through deception, emotional manipulation, coercion, non-consensual recording of intimate images, and threats of their dissemination.

"Awareness, vigilance and timely reporting of such offences are indispensable to prevent victimisation," it observed.

Notably, the Court added an advisory in the judgment, warning young girls and women against electronically sharing intimate photographs or videos. The Court said that it was respectfully urging all young girls and women to exercise utmost caution to safeguard their privacy and dignity in the digital world.

"Regrettably, in the present digital era, some unscrupulous individuals exploit the trust and emotional vulnerability of young girls and women ... this Court considers it appropriate to make a humble but earnest appeal to all young girls and women. No matter how deep the affection, trust, or promise of confidentiality may appear, intimate photographs or videos should never be shared with anyone through electronic means," the advisory further said.

The Court wrote its advisory in English, Tamil and Hindi, and asked print, electronic and digital media to publicise it to raise awareness about technology-enabled sexual exploitation.

A classic case of "romance fraud"

The Court made the observations while dealing with an appeal by one Susi alias Kasi, who challenged his rape conviction by a trial court. The trial court had considered the recovery of around 355 nude and semi-nude videos and over 1,000 obscene photographs allegedly depicting hundreds of women.

According to the prosecution, the victim was looking for employment when Kasi contacted her through Facebook. She rejected his friend requests but accepted one after persuasion. Kasi allegedly gained her confidence by promising to secure her a job and promising marriage. He then shifted their conversations to WhatsApp and persuaded her to meet him.

During their first meeting, he took her to his father’s factory premises, locked the car and sexually assaulted her despite her resistance. He later apologised, renewed his promises of employment and marriage, and induced her to meet him again.

Kasi allegedly recorded intimate photographs and videos without her knowledge. When she refused to meet him, he threatened to circulate the material on social media. The prosecution said the threat compelled her to submit to further sexual acts. She lodged a complaint after learning that police had seized the offending electronic material in another case against Kasi.

The Court rejected Kasi’s contention that the relationship was consensual and subsequently failed because of caste differences. It found that his promises of employment and marriage were never genuine and had been used to gain control over the victim.

The Bench described the case as a “classic illustration” of romance fraud, rape by deception and sexual extortion. Such cases required a contextual and victim-centric appreciation of evidence rather than stereotypical assumptions about how a victim should behave, it said.

The Court also ruled that every criminal case must be decided solely on the evidence legally produced. Public sentiment, media attention, the gravity of allegations or the existence of other cases against the accused could not determine his guilt.

“A Court of law cannot permit itself to be influenced by public sentiment, glare, or the gravity of the allegations," it said.

The Court also rejected arguments based on omissions in the first information report. A complaint was not expected to be an exhaustive account of every incident, particularly when it was made by a traumatised victim who had remained under continuous threat.

Kasi’s allegation that the investigating agency had pressured the woman into complaining was also rejected.

Describing Kasi as a habitual sexual predator, the High Court held that no mitigating circumstances justified reducing his sentence.

Those manning justice system are not unfeeling computers

The lead opinion was authored by Justice Ramkrishnan.

In a concurring postscript, Justice Venkatesh flagged the vicarious trauma suffered by investigators, lawyers and judges required to repeatedly examine graphic digital evidence.

"The machinery of justice cannot treat its human beings like unfeeling computers. If we continue to ignore the mental and neurological toll of this digital age, we will end up with burnt-out, traumatized, and emotionally numbed investigators, lawyers, and judges," Justice Venkatesh said.

The Court called for psychological screening, regular counselling, decompression protocols, rotation of personnel handling graphic material and training to recognise such vicarious trauma.

"The law must continue to refine the technical rules for digital evidence. It must also, with equal seriousness, safeguard the minds entrusted to apply it," Justice Venkatesh added.

The appellant (convict) was represented by Senior Advocate V Kathirvelu

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor G Karuppasamy Pandian.

[Read Judgment]