The Delhi High Court has firmly held that a mere “friendship” between a boy and a girl does not grant the boy the liberty to engage in sexual intercourse without the girl’s consent. The Court made this ruling while rejecting a bail application filed by a man accused of repeatedly raping a minor with whom he had first befriended.
In the case, the accused claimed that the girl had consented and that their relationship was voluntary. The girl, however, alleged that while she did befriend the accused, she was sexually assaulted multiple times despite her protestations. She also asserted that the accused threatened her to remain silent and that the assault continued from April 2023 to November 2023. Educational records established the girl’s age at the time as a minor.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, in his order, observed that the existence of a friendship does not imply consent, and consent in the case of a minor is legally ineffective. The Court held that the mere plea that the girl was an adult, or that they shared a friendly relationship, did not render the sexual act lawful. The Court emphasized that when the prosecutrix is a minor, her consent is immaterial in law, and the accused’s claim of consensual intercourse thus failed.
The Court analysed the girl’s version in the FIR and her subsequent testimony in light of the educational documents showing her age. It found that the accused’s reliance on an isolated statement extracted from the mother’s testimony did not merit interference in the context of a bail application. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence on record, the Court held that the matter was not suitable for bail at that stage.
This judgment underscores a critical legal principle: consent must be freely given, informed, and legally valid. Friendship, familiarity or a prior relationship cannot substitute for genuine consent, nor erase the legal protections afforded to minors. The Court’s decision reinforces that relationships established on the basis of friendliness do not bestow a right to sexual access, and that the law vigilantly protects the bodily autonomy of minors.
By refusing bail, the Court indicated that the accusations – of repeated sexual assault of a minor after befriending her – were serious, required full investigation and did not merit premature relief to the accused. The judgment thus reiterates the paramount importance of consent and the elevated standard of protection the law affords to children and minor victims in offences of sexual assault.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.