Sunil vs State Of Haryana

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant Sunil under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 IPC, affirming the trial court's findings despite the High Court's acquittal of co-accused Baldev. The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix's consent was irrelevant due to her age, as she was a minor, and established that the absence of physical resistance does not negate the occurrence of rape. The Court reiterated the legal principle that consent is not valid if the victim is below the age of consent as defined under Section 375 IPC, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.