Lawmatters.in

If there ever was a crazy reason to let a man get away with rape, it’d have to be this reasoning behind the judgement of the Orissa High Court: “Law is well settled that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against her will.”

 At first glance, the reasoning is just about as ‘sound’ as it was in the “Jeans are difficult for another to remove. Therefore, a woman who was wearing them could not have been raped.” case and as repugnant as Judge Archie Simonson’s “Women are sex objects whether or not they like it.” logic.

In the case in which the High Court came up with this extraordinary pronouncement, a healthy tribal woman whom the High Court deemed capable of resisting rape was raped and there was only one witness to the crime. The High Court concluded that the perpetrator had either been falsely accused or that the sex was consensual. The court based its conclusions upon the reasoning that there was no evidence of any resistance on the part of the woman.

Luckily, the Supreme Court did not agree with the it. On December 16, 2008 Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundam Sharma quashed the acquittal order passed by the High Court and proclaimed:

“The conclusions are not only confusing but border on absurdity.” The apex court also professed itself to be baffled as to why the HC said that the law says that it is impossible for a single man to rape a healthy woman who was in possession of her senses since, as it pointed out, “there is not even a single decision which says so.”

The Supreme Court also reprimanded the High Court judge for failing to adhere to judicial discipline by disclosing the name of the rape victim.

(The relevant case is State of Orissa v Sukru Gouda.)