Bombay High Court: A woman entering a hotel room with a man does not mean she consented to sex

The Supreme Court rejected these findings and the trial judge ‘We clearly made a mistake’ by making such observations.

“It is undoubtedly true that there is evidence showing that the defendant and the complainant acted as intermediaries in booking the room, but this cannot be considered as the victim’s consent for sexual intercourse.” The court said.

The court stated that the trial judge confused the two aspects of the victim entering the room without any objection and consenting to what was happening in the room.

“The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly confused two matters, namely, entering a room with the accused without raising any objection and secondly, consenting to what was happening in the room. The action of the complainant immediately after leaving the room, crying, calling the police and filing a complaint on that day was also the reason why the accused was in the room.” “It shows that the alleged overt act was against consent.” The court gave reasons.

The court also noted that the hotel staff detailed the entire scenario in line with the statement of the surviving woman.

Therefore, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that the woman had no problem booking a hotel room and that they had lunch together before entering the room, implying that the woman had agreed to have sexual intercourse.

Therefore, it annulled the release decision of the first instance court and decided to restart the trial against the defendant.

Prosecutor SG Bhobe appeared in court on behalf of the state.

Lawyers Kautuk Raikar and Digaj Bene appeared alongside the accused.