The Kerala High Court has perceived that only those sexual intercourse which are permitted could be interpreted as not in contravene to the rights of the victim, and welcomed as concordant. The case against the prosecution was that, he committed rape on the victim girl, a minor aged 14 years belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and impregnated her. The Trial Court held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is evident from the petitioner’s contention the age of the victim girl and failed to held that this case comes under the purview of the the definition of ‘rape’ in terms of Section 375 of the IPC. Justice PB Suresh Kumar observed that mere action of forbearance in the light of unavoidable obligation, dormancy, stoical or submitting, when preference is either clouded by fear or comprised by coercion, cannot be estimated as giving consent

The Court added that the Sexual assaults including rape are crimes of gender inequality. In ground reality, sex that is actually desired by a woman is never termed consensual, for when a sexual interaction is equal, consent is not needed and when it is unequal, the consent doesn’t amount to equality in opinions. The bench touched on to a judgement of the United States Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mechelle Vinson et al. [477 US. 57 (1986)] , which it was held that agreeableness and not consent, shall be the basis for sex that does not infringe the rights of women congruence with gender equality.

The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and ratifying the conviction of the accused.

(BY VASUNDHARA DHAR)