The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, clarifying that when a woman books a hotel room with a man and enters the room with him, this alone does not imply her consent to engage in sexual intercourse with him.

The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande emphasized that, even if it is presumed that the woman entered the room with the man, this action cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be interpreted as her consent to sexual activity.

"It is no doubt true that there is material to show that the accused and the complainant were instrumental in booking the room, however, that would not be considered as consent given by the victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse....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," the Court held.

To this, the Court set aside the trial court's order, which had dismissed the rape case against the accused, Gulsher Ahmed.

In its discharge order, the trial court had reasoned that because the woman had played a role in booking the hotel room and had entered it with the accused, she had thereby consented to the sexual intercourse that occurred inside the room.

Case Brief:

The case was stemmed in March 2020 when the accused allegedly promised the woman a private job overseas. Reportedly, he deceived her into coming to a hotel room under the pretense of meeting with an employment agency. Both the accused and the woman had jointly booked the room.

The survivor alleged that shortly after entering the hotel room, the accused threatened to kill her and then raped her. She stated that she managed to escape when the accused went to the bathroom, fleeing the hotel and reporting the incident to the police.

Following her complaint, the accused was arrested and charged under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the trial court discharged the accused, reasoning that because the woman had voluntarily entered the room, she had consented to sexual intercourse.

"It is no doubt true that there is material to show that the accused and the complainant were instrumental in booking the room, however, that would not be considered as consent given by the victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse," the Court said.

"The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly mixed two aspects i.e. going inside with the accused in a room without any protest and secondly, giving consent for what happened in the room. The action on the part of the complainant immediately after coming out of the room and that too crying, calling the police and lodging a complaint on that day itself show that the overt act allegedly carried out in the room by the accused was not consensual," the Court reasoned.

The Court dismissed the accused's argument that the woman’s willingness to book the hotel room and have lunch with him beforehand implied her consent to a sexual encounter. Consequently, the Court overturned the trial court's discharge order and reinstated the trial against the accused.