Question 1 · Medium
During the medico-legal examination of an adult survivor of rape, the accused's lawyer later argues that she did not scream or fight back, and that the absence of injuries on her body proves consent. The doctor is asked about this in court. What is the legal position?
- AAbsence of injuries proves the act was consensual
- BConsent is presumed if she did not raise an alarm
- COnly a woman with genital injuries can prove rape
- DLack of resistance alone does not mean consent
Show answerHide answer
Answer: D · Lack of resistance alone does not mean consent
BNS 63 defines consent as an unequivocal voluntary agreement, and expressly states that a woman who does not physically resist the act shall not, by that fact alone, be regarded as consenting. Many survivors freeze or submit out of fear, and up to half have no genital or body injuries. The doctor should state that absence of injuries neither confirms nor excludes sexual assault. Key point: Absence of resistance or injuries does not prove consent in rape; it neither confirms nor excludes assault.
- A: Many survivors have no injuries, so their absence proves nothing.
- B: Silence or not raising an alarm is not consent in law.
- C: Rape can be proved without genital injury, on the whole evidence.