The Bombay High Court’s Goa Bench has restored charges against Gulsher Ahmed in a pivotal ruling on September 3, 2024, underscoring that a woman’s choice to enter a hotel room with a man cannot be assumed as consent for sexual intercourse. Justice Bharat P. Deshpande’s decision overruled an earlier dismissal by the Margao Additional Sessions Court, which had discharged the accused based on presumptions about the complainant’s actions.
Background of the Case
The case originated in March 2020 when the complainant alleged that Gulsher Ahmed had lured her to a hotel room under the guise of a meeting for potential overseas employment. She reported that Ahmed, instead, coerced her into a non-consensual sexual act by threatening harm. Following the incident, the woman immediately reported the assault to the police, leading to Ahmed’s arrest. However, in a ruling on March 3, 2021, the Additional Sessions Court discharged Ahmed, suggesting that her willingness to enter the hotel room with Ahmed signaled a consensual relationship.
Court’s Legal Observations and Principles on Consent
The High Court’s ruling addressed two crucial legal principles relevant to the case:
1. Prima Facie Evidence in Framing Charges: Justice Deshpande emphasized that at the preliminary stage of framing charges, courts should assess whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists to proceed, rather than make determinations on the credibility of witness statements. Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code guide courts to frame charges when there is “grave suspicion” that an offense may have occurred. The High Court noted that the lower court’s approach—applying an evaluative standard as if already in full trial—was inappropriate for this stage.
2. Clarification on Consent in Sexual Assault Cases: Crucially, the High Court underscored that entering a room or engaging in certain preliminary actions does not imply consent to sexual intercourse. Justice Deshpande stated, “Even if it is accepted that the Victim went inside the room along with the Accused, the same cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as her consent for sexual intercourse.” This observation challenges assumptions that have sometimes influenced decisions in similar cases, reinforcing the need for explicit consent in sexual activities.
New Evidence and Supporting Testimonies
The High Court’s decision to restore charges also relied on additional forensic evidence that was not considered in the sessions court ruling. A forensic report on the victim’s clothing detected the presence of semen, strengthening the credibility of her allegations. Furthermore, statements from hotel staff provided corroborative evidence; one staff member noted seeing the complainant leaving the room in distress and calling someone shortly afterward, which aligned with her narrative of immediately contacting the police.
The High Court criticized the sessions court for overlooking the weight of this evidence, especially the victim’s immediate actions following the alleged assault. Justice Deshpande remarked on the need to respect such corroborative actions as indicators of non-consent and avoid misinterpreting the victim’s behavior simply because she entered the room willingly.
Direction and Next Proceedings
In its ruling, the High Court ordered the Margao Additional Sessions Court to reinstate charges against Gulsher Ahmed under Sections 376 (rape) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, directing the trial court to frame these charges and proceed accordingly. The court has set September 26, 2024, for the next hearing, with both parties mandated to appear.
Representing the State, Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor, argued for the restoration of charges, while Mr. Kautuk Raikar and Mr. Digaj Bene represented the accused, Gulsher Ahmed.
