‘No Means No’: Bombay HC Rules Past Relationship Cannot Justify Presumed Consent In Rape Case

Mumbai: Reaffirming the principle that “No means no”, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of three men for gang-raping a woman. The court rejected their defence that her past relationship with one of them implied continued consent. The court made it clear that prior intimacy or a woman’s sexual history cannot override her unequivocal refusal.

“A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO’. There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman’s so-called immoral activities,” said a bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and M W Chandwani on May 6. Though the court reduced their sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years, it refused to interfere with the conviction.

The incident occurred in November 2014, when the three accused forcibly entered the home of the woman, assaulted her live-in partner, and abducted her. They then took her to a secluded location and raped her. The accused had argued that the woman had earlier been in a relationship with one of them and was now living with another man without divorcing her husband.

The court rejected their claims, observing that even if a woman was previously in a relationship, she retains full autonomy over her body. “A woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances,” the judges said.

The bench emphasised that rape is not just a physical act but a violation of dignity, privacy, and autonomy. “Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but should be viewed as a crime involving aggression. It is a violation of her right to privacy… the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society,” the court noted.

Further, the court said the woman’s personal choices—such as living with a man while estranged from her husband—do not justify or mitigate the crime. “Even though there may have been a relationship between the victim and Wasim in the past, if she was not willing to have sexual intercourse with him and his colleagues, any act without her consent would amount to rape under Section 375 of the IPC,” the court said.

The bench also upheld their conviction for assaulting the woman’s partner and underlined that sexual violence is an act of domination and control over vulnerable members of society, warranting strict punishment.