The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court delivered a landmark judgment on May 6, 2025 in Maksud Gaffur Sheikh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, powerfully reaffirming the legal principle that consent must be ongoing, specific, and unambiguous. Arising from a deeply disturbing series of events in November 2014—including gang rape, assault, and abduction—the case prompted the Court to confront not only the facts but also the underlying attitudes surrounding sexual violence. Rejecting defence attempts to discredit the victim by referencing her past relationships and personal choices, the Court unequivocally ruled that such arguments are irrelevant. It emphasised that a woman’s character or sexual history can never serve as a defence to allegations of sexual assault, and that consent must be explicit and contemporaneous in each instance.
Brief facts
The case involved a series of incidents occurring on November 5 and 6, 2014. These included an initial altercation, followed by a criminal trespass, where a woman (the prosecutrix/primary victim) and her male companion (second victim) were assaulted, and a friend (third victim) who came to help was also attacked. During the trespass, the primary victim and the third victim were forced to strip and were videographed in compromising positions. Subsequently, the primary victim and the second victim were abducted. The second victim was taken to railway tracks, assaulted, and left for dead but managed to escape. The primary victim was then taken to multiple locations where she was subjected to gang rape by three individuals (two appellants and a juvenile tried separately).
Charges and initial convictions
Multiple accused faced charges including criminal trespass (Sections 450, 452 IPC), grievous hurt (Sections 324, 326 IPC), sexual harassment (Sections 354A, 354B IPC), voyeurism (Section 354C IPC), violation of privacy under the IT Act (Section 66E), abduction (Section 366 IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), robbery (Section 394 IPC), gang rape (Section 376D IPC), and harbouring offenders (Section 212 IPC). The trial court convicted several accused on various counts, handing down severe sentences including life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court.
High Court’s decision on appeals
The High Court upheld convictions for several appellants for offences including criminal trespass, assault (altered from grievous hurt to simple hurt by dangerous weapon in some instances), sexual harassment, voyeurism, IT Act violations, abduction, attempt to murder, robbery, and significantly, gang rape against two appellants.
One appellant was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence placing him at the scene of the crime inside the room.
Sentences were modified for several convicts: life imprisonment for attempt to murder was reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for two appellants; life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life for gang rape was reduced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment for the same two appellants. The sentence for harbouring an offender was reduced to the period already undergone for one appellant.
The Court on consent and sexual history
The High Court addressed the issue of consent, particularly in response to defence arguments that attempted to question the primary victim’s character and suggest that her alleged past relationships or sexual history, including a prior acquaintance with one of the accused, might imply consent or make her testimony unreliable. The Court emphatically rejected these notions, reinforcing the principle of “No means No.”
The judgment stated
- “NO means NO”: A woman who says ‘NO’ means ‘NO’. There exists no further ambiguity and there could be no presumption of consent based on a woman’s so called ‘immoral activities’. (Para 85)
- Irrelevance of past relationships or character: The Court made it clear that even though there may have been a relationship between the prosecutrix and [one of the accused] in the past but if the prosecutrix was not willing to have sexual intercourse with [the accused], his colleague… and the juvenile in conflict with law, any act without her consent would be an offence within the meaning of Section 375 of the IPC. (Para 85)
- Consent is instance-specific: The court stated that a woman who consents to sexual activities with a man at a particular instance does not ipso facto give consent to sexual activity with the same man at all other instances. (Para 85)
- Character and number of sexual partners are not determinative of consent: The court stated that a woman’s character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had in wake of Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act. This section of the Evidence Act restricts evidence of the victim’s character or previous sexual experience in prosecutions for sexual offences. (Para 85)
- Primacy of consent over perceived morality: The Court addressed attempts to question the primary victim’s morals due to her being estranged from her husband and living with another man, or suggestions of a prior intimate relationship with one of the accused. It emphasized that even if such circumstances were true, “a person cannot force a woman to have intercourse with him without her consent.” (Para 84)
- Rape as aggression, domination: The Court described rape not merely as a sexual crime but as “a crime involving aggression which leads to the domination of the prosecutrix. It is a violation of her right of privacy. Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society, as it is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim, the court added. (Para 85)
In essence, the High Court’s judgment strongly affirmed that consent must be explicit and contemporaneous for each sexual act. A victim’s past sexual history, choices in relationships, or perceived character are not relevant to determining whether consent was given for a specific instance of sexual intercourse. The Court underscored that the absence of consent makes any sexual intercourse an offence, irrespective of the victim’s background or previous associations with the accused.
The judgement reinforced the evolving jurisprudence that centres the victim’s agency, making it unequivocally clear that consent must be specific, informed, and ongoing—regardless of any prior associations or societal judgments about the victim’s morality. In doing so, the Court not only delivered justice in a deeply disturbing case but also contributed meaningfully to the broader fight against rape culture and victim-blaming narratives in India’s criminal justice system.
(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)
Related:
A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’