Victim cannot be blamed for sexual assault because she had cordial relations with accused: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently set aside observations made in a sessions court order which cast doubt on the character of a sexual assault victim while granting the accused bail [X v. State Govt NCT of Delhi And Another & Anr].

Justice Amit Mahajan held that a woman does not become responsible for sexual assault merely because she had cordial relations with the accused.

“The trauma of the victim, in the opinion of this Court, ought not to have been trivialised by such observations. Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault. Concededly, no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room,” the Court stated. 

The petitioner woman and the accused man developed relations over the phone. After meeting for dinner, the man invited her to stay in his hostel room at the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus. The following day, the accused gave her a tour of the campus. When she was ready to leave, the accused asked her to stay over for another night. The woman agreed. She alleged that the next morning, she woke up to find the accused lying next to her on the bed and touching her inappropriately.

A few days later, he again invited her to his hostel room and again sexually assaulted her. This prompted her to file a complaint with the police. After he was arrested, the accused successfully moved the sessions court for bail.

The sessions court made several observations regarding the relations between the man and woman and that the woman was an “educated girl” expected to be aware about the consequences of her act.

The woman moved the High Court against the observations made in the bail order.

The Court stated that the sessions court’s observations were not warranted at the stage of considering bail. 

“The observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim. The probabilities of the allegations cannot be commented in this manner as done by the learned ASJ while considering the application for bail. The allegations could not have been trivialised for the reason that victim after the first alleged incident again met the accused or went to the Respondent No. 2’s room alone."

Thereby, the Court set aside the sessions court’s observations. 

Advocates Warisha Farasat, Suvarna Swain and Kaustubh Chaturvedi appeared for the petitioner. 

Additional Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar Gautam appeared for the State.

Advocates Geeta Verma and Pawan Kumar appeared for the accused.

[Read order]