Merely because a condom was found at crime scene would not be sufficient to conclude that the sexual intercourse between the accused and victim was consensual, Mumbai Sessions Court said while granting bail to a Navy personnel accused of rape..The complainant who used to reside in the same house as the applicant claimed that the applicant had raped her when her husband was out of town..The accused even threatened the victim of falsely implicating the victim’s husband in the case if she told about the incident to anyone. When the husband was informed of the same, he filed the complaint based on which the FIR was registered..The accused had approached the Court with a second regular bail application after his first petition was rejected..The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case as there was another person present in the house, hence it was impossible to commit the offence..He also pointed out that there was a condom found on the spot which would imply that there was no untoward incident which happened..Additional Sessions Judge Sanjashree J Gharat, however, observed that the first application had rightly been rejected as mere presence of condom on the spot would not imply consensual sex..“Merely because the condom was found at the spot of incident is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the complainant was having consensual relations with the applicant. The possibility of accused using the condom in order to avoid further complications cannot be ruled out,” the Court stated..The Court, however, eventually granted bail to the applicant on the ground that the investigation in the case had now been completed and chargesheet filed..[Read order].Here are a few links to helplines for survivors of sexual assault/harassment/domestic abuse:http://www.ncw.nic.in/helplineshttps://indianhelpline.com/WOMEN-HELPLINE/http://www.sakhi.gov.in/assets/site/main/resource_directory/1565612310_Directory-%20%20181%20Women%20Helpline%20Scheme.pdf
Merely because a condom was found at crime scene would not be sufficient to conclude that the sexual intercourse between the accused and victim was consensual, Mumbai Sessions Court said while granting bail to a Navy personnel accused of rape..The complainant who used to reside in the same house as the applicant claimed that the applicant had raped her when her husband was out of town..The accused even threatened the victim of falsely implicating the victim’s husband in the case if she told about the incident to anyone. When the husband was informed of the same, he filed the complaint based on which the FIR was registered..The accused had approached the Court with a second regular bail application after his first petition was rejected..The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case as there was another person present in the house, hence it was impossible to commit the offence..He also pointed out that there was a condom found on the spot which would imply that there was no untoward incident which happened..Additional Sessions Judge Sanjashree J Gharat, however, observed that the first application had rightly been rejected as mere presence of condom on the spot would not imply consensual sex..“Merely because the condom was found at the spot of incident is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the complainant was having consensual relations with the applicant. The possibility of accused using the condom in order to avoid further complications cannot be ruled out,” the Court stated..The Court, however, eventually granted bail to the applicant on the ground that the investigation in the case had now been completed and chargesheet filed..[Read order].Here are a few links to helplines for survivors of sexual assault/harassment/domestic abuse:http://www.ncw.nic.in/helplineshttps://indianhelpline.com/WOMEN-HELPLINE/http://www.sakhi.gov.in/assets/site/main/resource_directory/1565612310_Directory-%20%20181%20Women%20Helpline%20Scheme.pdf