Himachal Pradesh HC refuses bail for rape accused, says some men fail to understand when a girl says ‘no’

“No means no — the simplest of sentences has become the most difficult for some men to understand,” was the remark made by Himachal Pradesh High Court because it rejected a bail plea of a rape accused on Wednesday.

Dismissing the petition, Jusctice Anoop Chitkara in his judgement noticed: “No means no — the simplest of sentences has become the most difficult for some men to understand. ‘No’ does not mean ‘yes,’ it does not mean that the girl is shy, it does not mean that the girl is asking a man to convince her, it does not mean that he has to keep pursuing her. The word ‘no’ doesn’t need any further explanation or justification. It ends there, and the man has to stop. Be that as it may, the victim, in this case, said ‘no’ to the accused when he started touching her, but he continued. It nowhere implies consent, or zeal and desire to explore and feel each other in romantic love.”

“…Neither the absence of resistance nor the unwilling submission implies consent in any language. She explicitly said ‘no’ to the accused, but he did not stop. When the curriculum does not include proper sex education, the children raised by such societies fail the women time and again,” he added.

The accused, Suresh Kumar, 26, has been in custody since December 18, 2020, for allegedly providing the sufferer aged 17 a raise on his car, and after that, as an alternative of permitting her to alight, took the car to an remoted place, after which after intimidation raped her regardless of her protests.

The incident passed off in Rajgarh space of district Solan in Himachal Pradesh on December 17, and the accused later approached the courtroom for common bail.

The courtroom additionally added that the sufferer voluntarily narrated the incident to her mom and prima facie pointed in direction of the genuineness of the incident.

“It would be correct to say that it was courageous for the victim to talk about the unfortunate incident to her mother and later come forward and report the same with the police. Furthermore, the scientific evidence points towards the presence of blood and semen on the victim’s underwear. It also states that no physical injuries were found on her body. As stated by the victim in her Section 164 CrPC statement that she had said ‘no’ for sex with the accused, and the accused told her not to cry; otherwise, he would force himself upon her. In such circumstances of threat and coercion in a secluded area, the victim was forced to cooperate with the accused, which explains the absence of physical injuries on her body, and the presence of semen, indicating unprotected sex,” noticed the courtroom.