The Delhi High Court overturned a rape conviction, saying a woman who had injuries to her vagina and died as a result of “forceful sexual intercourse,” had not been sexually assaulted.

In a judgment on Oct. 30, the High Court said that even though the woman, aged between 65 and 70, had sustained injuries from “forceful penetration,” a lack of injury marks elsewhere on her body showed that she had not made any protest against the act.

“Hence we are of the opinion that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the deceased contrary to her wishes or her consent,” the judgment returned by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Mukta Gupta said.

Vrinda Grover, a lawyer and women’s rights activist based in New Delhi, said the court had wrongly looked for injuries on the body of the woman and of the accused as the only sign that a rape had been committed. “Why does the absence of injury suggest consent?” Ms. Grover asked, adding that “forceful penetration” should be enough to indicate that the woman had not wanted to have sex. “The court in this case is not interpreting the evidence before it in a manner that the law and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court requires,” Ms. Grover said. In 1983, India’s rape laws were amended to say that a court should presume that a woman who says she did not consent is telling the truth. The change was prompted by a case in 1972, when a 16-year-old tribal girl named Mathura, who used a single name, was allegedly raped in a police station. Mathura’s family lodged a criminal complaint against two officers. The Supreme Court eventually threw out the case, saying the girl’s body bore no outward signs of rape. The ruling sparked protests by women’s groups. Four eminent law professors wrote an open letter of complaint to the chief justice about the ruling, leading to the 1983 changes. Even after that, questions around consent in rape cases lingered and in 2013, further amendments to India’s rape law clarified that a woman who does not physically resist the act of penetration should not be presumed to have consented to sex. “This was a clarification, not a change in the law, because repeatedly courts were interpreting consent wrongly,” Ms. Grover said. And, in her opinion, the Delhi High Court has done so now. “They are only looking at extraneous circumstances: the fact that she is an adult, had consumed alcohol and had no injuries on the rest of her body.” One line in the judgment has particularly raised eyebrows. The judges in their concluding paragraph noted that the deceased woman “was aged around 65-70, thus beyond the age of menopause.” Although they do not suggest that a post-menopausal woman cannot be raped, by mentioning that she was beyond the age of menstruation, “the judges are not comprehending what a crime of rape is, that it can be committed on a one month old or an 80 year old,” Ms. Grover said. For breaking news, features and analysis from India, click here and follow WSJ India on Facebook.

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8