While it is commendable to have no hesitation in attaching great importance to the dignity, consent and well-being of women, it is certainly very refreshing, refreshing and also very reassuring to note that it is certainly one of the oldest and also one of the oldest women in the world. There is no doubt that it is one of the most respected and generous Supreme Court in India and hence, having the highest number of Supreme Court Benches among all the States in India, the bench of the Bombay High Court in Goa is the most erudite, commendable, 3 September 2024′ Penal Revision Application No. of 2021, cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-GOA:1465, disclosed in . The landmark, logical and cutting-edge decision in State Via Canacona Police Station v. State Gulsher Ahmed at 6 has been expressly accepted. Just because a woman books a hotel room with a man and enters the room with him does not mean she consents to sexual intercourse with him. The Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Bharat P Deshpande, without further ado, highlighted that even assuming the woman entered the room with the man, this could not happen at all. Her imagination can be considered as her consent to sex. Quite rightly so!

In simple terms, we must state that the Board used the following statements in a very frank, determined and frank manner: “It is undoubtedly true that there is evidence showing that the accused and the complainant were instrumental in booking the room, however, this cannot be considered as consent given by the victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse.” … Even if it is accepted that the victim entered the room with the defendant, this situation can in no way be considered as consent given by the victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse.” Therefore, we find that the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court considered it absolutely appropriate to quash the discharge order passed by the Trial Court in March 2021, wherein the rape case against the accused, Gulsher Ahmed, was closed. It decided to restart the proceedings against the defendant. There’s no denying it.

We must point out at the outset that this short, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment by the Single Judge Bench of Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Bharat P Deshpande first sets the ball in motion and asserts in para 2 at the outset that We continue: “The present Amendment has been made challenging the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Margao and thus the Respondent/Accused is violating Section 376 and for an offense punishable under Sections 506 (ii).”

It is certainly to be noted that the Bench has very rightly observed in paragraph 8 that: “The question before the Learned Sessions Court was only about the framing of the charge against the Accused. The Accused will clearly show that the entire burden was placed on the Complainant and that he was not believed merely because he accompanied the Accused and entered the room. Learned “Such observations of the Supreme Court and this too in the framing of the charge are clearly outside the ambit of the provisions requiring the Divisional Court to consider the material for the purpose of framing the charge against the Accused.”

The Bench states in para 9: “Chapter The statement under Section 228 in relation to the appearance of the Accused as to whether there is evidence simply says that if a Court finds that there is a charge, the Accused has committed such an offence. If there is reason to assume, the charge may be framed.”

Needless to say, the Bench then states in paragraph 10 that: “It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge the Court has to pan and weigh the material for the sole purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the charge exists or not. In doing so the Court shall examine the entire indictment, the testimony of the Victim and other witnesses.” “In addition to his statements, he should also examine the documents supporting the prosecution’s case, and if there is serious doubt, the charge must be framed.”

Note that the court stated in paragraph 11: “The matter at hand clearly shows that the complaint was made by the Victim immediately after the incident. The records show that the Victim, after leaving the room, immediately called the whistleblower. Police. Upon the police’s arrival at the hotel in question, the Complainant was taken to the Police Station and a complaint was filed. Victim , explained in clear terms that the Defendant took him to a hotel under the pretext of meeting with an Agent, who was supposed to secure his job abroad.”

Most logically, the Board minces no words in paragraph 12 to observe: “It is undoubtedly true that there is evidence to show that the Accused and the Complainant were instrumental in booking the room, but this will not be considered consent. It was given by the Victim for the purpose of sexual intercourse.”

It cannot be ignored that the Panel made the following statement in paragraph 13: “In her statement, the Complainant explained that the Defendant threatened to kill her after closing the room and then had sexual intercourse without her consent. The Defendant entered the bathroom, immediately left the room and ran towards the ground floor and then 100 meters away.” He dialed and called the police.”

Moreover, the Board states in paragraph 14: “The record shows that the accused was arrested on the same day, but the crime scene panchanama was conducted on the next date, that is, on 03.03.2020. During the said panchanama, the accused was informed that the room was inspected and no criminal elements were found.” and it was not attached.”

It cannot be overlooked that the Panel succinctly put forward the following statement in paragraph 15: “The victim was subjected to a medical examination only at night on the date of the complaint and the report was recorded. The doctor says that the examination report was kept pending the serological/biological examination reports.” Therefore, it cannot be said that the report does not support the prosecution.”

It is worth noting that the Board then makes it clear in paragraph 16 that: “Although the witness at the hotel described the Defendant and the Complainant entering the room, there is a statement from a hotel staff member that clearly shows that the girl (the victim) came downstairs crying.” He saw it and went directly outside the hotel and was looking for someone. This statement is completely in line with the contents of the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.

Most importantly, the Bench summarizes in paragraph 17 what forms the cornerstone of this remarkable judgment: “The learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly erred in observing that the Victim had consented to sexual intercourse from the time she entered the room. This inference is clearly contrary to settled proposition and especially that the complaint should be made immediately after the incident.” Even if it is accepted that the Victim entered the room with the Accused, considering that it was done thereafter, this situation is absolutely unacceptable, the Additional Sessions Judge has clearly confused two matters, namely; “entering a room without being present and, secondly, immediately consenting to the action performed by the Complainant. The fact that she cried a lot after leaving the room, called the police and filed a complaint that day shows that the overt act allegedly carried out by the defendant in the room was against consent.”

Equally important is the following statement specifically mentioned in paragraph 18: “The statement made by the Complainant and recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC cannot be denied as the learned Additional Sessions Court has done and also orders the discharge of the Accused. “If it is found that material evidence exists to frame the charge, it is the mandatory duty of the Court to frame the charge and impose the sentence. A report was then received from the forensic laboratory confirming that semen was found on the victim’s clothes.”

Most obviously, what is noteworthy here is that the Bench leaves no words missing in paragraph 19 asserting and directing that: “It is an established proposition of law that in case of rape under Article 376 of the IPC, full influence is not possible. The learned Supreme Court, held above, has completely overlooked the suggestion and made a finding contrary to the record. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside against the Accused/Respondent. In view of the offense punishable under Sections 506(ii), the Trial Court is therefore directed to frame the charges against the Accused accordingly.”

In addition, the Board rules in paragraph 20 that “The parties will appear before the Supreme Court at 10:00 on 26.09.2024.”

Finally, the Board concludes in paragraph 21 that “the Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.”

In conclusion, we find that the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has unequivocally established that a woman entering a hotel room with a man does not imply her consent to sex. If a man dares to have sex with a woman without her consent, he must pay the price and be prosecuted, and if convicted, be prepared to spend time in jail! What is most striking about this pioneering case, which we should keep in mind, is that the woman filed a complaint immediately, and not a few years, a few months, or a few days had passed since her complaint. Her urgent complaint against forced sexual intercourse should be given the highest priority; This is what the Goa Bench has done laudably in this premier case and directed the Trial Court to frame the charges against the accused. So the defendant now has no choice but to go to court and prove whether the sexual intercourse was consensual; If he fails he will have to spend time in jail! There’s no denying it!