"NO means NO; The simple sentence has become most difficult for some men to understand:" Himachal Pradesh High Court denies bail to rape accused

A woman saying "no" to the sexual advances of a man has one and only one meaning - that she is not open to such sexual activity, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held on Wednesday (Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh).A "no" does not mean the girl is shy or asking the man to convince her, the Court said emphasising that neither the absence of resistance nor the unwilling submission implies consent for sexual intercourse. .When a woman says no, the man has to stop, the single-judge Justice Anoop Chitkara said adding that this simple word has become the most difficult for some men to understand. ."NO MEANS NO- The simplest of sentences have become the most difficult for some men to understand. No does not mean yes, it does not mean that the girl is shy, it does not mean that the girl is asking a man to convince her, it does not mean that he has to keep pursuing her. The word NO doesn't need any further explanation or justification. It ends there, and the man has to stop," the Court said..The Court, therefore, rejected the bail application of a 26-year-old man accused of raping a 17-year-old. .The Court in its judgment further raised concern that in the absence of a proper curriculum for sex education, society is failing women time and again. .The survivor, in this case, had stated that she had explicity said no when the accused had started touching her inappropriately. The simplest of sentences, "no means no" has become difficult for some men to understand, the Court remarked..The word NO doesn't need any further explanation or justification. It ends there, and the man has to stop.Himachal Pradesh High Court.The counsel for the accused had asserted that the victim herself had disclosed that she was friends with the accused. Therefore, if any sexual intercourse had taken place, it was with the active consent of the victim. .The Court, however, disagreed. .By way of facts, it was the prosecution's case that the accused had allegedly picked up the survivor on the pretext of dropping her home and proceeded to take a detour to a secluded place where he inappropriately touched her and threatened to force himself on her if she were to cry. He is also stated to have asked if she would marry him, to which she said no. Thereafter, he is alleged to have undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. .The survivor went home by bus and told her mother about the incident, leading to the police complaint. The accused was charged with rape under the Indian Penal Code as well as offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, since the survivor was 17 years old. .The Court noted that the alleged events took place during daylight hours. Therefore, it was unlikely that the survivor was questioned for coming home late prompting her to make up the said allegations.."The question involved here is what prompted the girl to inform about the incident to her mother. It is not the case that she reached home late in the night or that her parents questioned her or started a search looking for her. She would have kept it discreet because, as per her version, no one had noticed them. If the sexual act was with her will, she would not have told anyone about the same and tried to conceal the same. The victim voluntarily narrated the incident to her mother, prima facie points towards the genuineness of the incident," the Court said..The Judge further opined that it was courageous of the survivor to talk about the incident to her mother and later report the same to the police. .Scientific analysis pointed towards the presence of blood and semen in the survivor's underwear, which pointed towards unprotected sex, the Judge noted. While there were no physical injuries found on the survivor's body, the Court reasoned that this was because the survivor was intimidated into cooperating with the accused. .In this backdrop, the Court opined that the accused had failed to make out a case for bail and dismissed the bail plea. However, the Court granted liberty to the accused to file a new bail application if there are changed circumstances. .Any observation made in this judgment would not be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the Court added..[Read Judgment]