New Delhi, Aug 25: Enlarging the ambit of rape in a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that submission of the body under fear cannot be construed as a consensual sexual act. Consent, for the purpose of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), requires voluntary participation after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and the moral quality of the act. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances, the court added. The ruling was handed down by a three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Justices R.C. Lahoti and K.G. Balakrishnan, while setting aside the verdict of ‘clean chit’ given by a sessions court of Chamba division of Himachal Pradesh, and confirmed by the high court, to an accused charged with raping a 13-year-old village girl. The 17-year-old Mango Ram, who was related to the victim, raped her on April 17, 1993 in a cowshed in Bhadhad . The sessions court acquitted the accused on the ground that the offence of rape under Sec. 367 IPC had not been established. The sessions judge opined that the victim must have been above the age of 14. On an appeal filed by the state government, a single judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court did not interfere with the findings of the sessions court. The high court held that the view taken by the sessions court was neither perverse nor grossly wrong. It also observed that the medical evidence did not positively point to the commission of the alleged offence. ''From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the girl had given her consent and thereafter she turned round and acted against the interest of the accused. There is a clear, credible evidence that she resisted the onslaught and made all possible efforts to prevent the accused from committing rape on her. Therefore, the findings entered by the sessions judge that there was consent on the part of the victim is without any basis,'' the Supreme Court judges observed in their 11-page judgment. In view of the evidence, corroborated by medical and other items and in the absence of any consent on the part of the victim, the judges noted that it was clearly established that the accused had committed rape on her and was liable for the offence punishable under Sec. 376. Thereafter, ''the finding given by the sessions judge is not based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, unreasonable and we are of the view that the sessions dealt with the case lightly. The offence of rape being a serious one, the case should have received careful attention.'' The sessions judge and the single judge of the High Court should have shown greater sensitivity to such a case. The evidence should have been appreciated on broader probabilities and the courts should not have been carried away by insignificant contradiction, the apex court judges observed.As regards the sentence, the judges took a lenient view for the reason that the accused and the victim were related. “They were both teenagers with an age difference of two to three years. Both were immature. The incident happened in 1993. After the acquittal by passage of time the members of two families must have buried the hatchet, if any, arisen on account of the incident,” the judges said and added that imprisonment already undergone by the accused would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. —UNI