Rao Harnarain Singh v 

State 1958 CriLJ 563

The husband of the deceased was serving under the three accused men who
were in positions of power. Rao Harnarain Singh ordered the husband to send
his wife to them to satisfy their sexual desires. The husband opposed doing this
but due to pressure, asked his wife to do the same. The wife was not willing to
do this but she gave in due to compulsion. The three men are accused of raping
and murdering the wife.
The Court observed that submission is not consent. When a person agrees to
something due to certain pressures or fear, the act of agreeing is not free and
wilful. The Court points out that a person who submits does not consent, even
though a person who consents can submit. The Court points put that the
participation of the woman has to be voluntarily and free from any pressures.

Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura Rape Case)

Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty  1996 SCC (1) 490

Tulshi das Kanolkar v State of Goa (2003) 8 SCC590

The victim’s mental skills were underdeveloped, and her Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.) was less than a third of that of a normal individual. Victim’s parents
observed the legs of victim as being swollen and with indicators of an advanced
stage of pregnancy sometime in 1999. Parents were really taken aback and
inquired as to who was to blame for the victim’s pregnancy. The victim, in her
own manner, pointed accusing fingers at the accused and claimed that he
ravished her at multiple occasions. The victim’s family asked for money from
the Accused for termination of pregnancy but they were only willing to part Rs
2000 and not Rs 6000 as required. There was no termination of the pregnancy,
and evidence reveals that the victim delivered a stillborn child. PW1 reported
the incident to the police on August 10, 1999. (Father of the victim). The
accused was investigated for committing the crime of rape and making a threat
against the victim. Under the charge sheet a case for offences punishable
under Section 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed. The
Trial Court considered all of the pleas and found the defendants guilty,
imposing terms of ten years and one year for the two alleged offences,
respectively, along with fines of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, with a default
stipulation. In an appeal, the Trial Court’s position was restated before the High
Court of Bombay in Goa, which maintained the conviction but reduced the
sentence to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court dismissed the contentions of the Learned
Counsel on the behalf of the State representing the Victim that there was no
merit in the Appeal on the Bombay’s High Court Judgement reducing the
accused’s punishment and the convicted person should serve his required
sentence. However, the court laid down how a mentally challenged victim is
more vulnerable and how rape can tarnish not only the physical body of the
victim but also took advantage of her mental state.

R. v. Jarvis 2019 SCC 10

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada (“Court”) held that students in a
school had a reasonable expectation of privacy against being secretly recorded
for a sexual purpose. The accused, a high school teacher, recorded female
students in the common areas of the school using a camera hidden in a pen. The
recordings were taken without the students’ knowledge or consent and focused
on their faces, upper bodies, and chests. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that
the students did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a school, which
was appealed to the Court. The Court considered the circumstances in which an
individual may reasonably expect to be free from observation or recording. It
laid down a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered while determining
whether such circumstances existed. It observed that merely being in a public
place did not waive off all expectations of privacy. Examining the facts in this
case, the Court held that the students’ circumstances enabled a reasonable
expectation of privacy against the recording by the accused and convicted him.

Laxmi v. Union of India 2013 (9) SCALE 291

Laxmi, an acid attack survivor, filed a PIL against the Union of India and others,
which led the publication of recommendations for the welfare of acid attack
survivors. It was ordered by the Supreme Court that Acid sales be restricted and
that victims be compensated. Prior to the introduction of the new classification
system, acid attacks were categorized as “grievous hurt” crimes.