Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the validity of consent as a defence.     

Facts

• In the present facts there was a married couple. 
• The husband who was the accused in this case was charged with the offence of assault under the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861.  
• The act for which he was accused was the one that involved consensual sadomasochistic sexual act. 
• The husband in this case had branded his initials into his wife’s buttocks with hot knife. 
• Hence, the charge was framed against the husband under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861. 
• In order to avoid the liability the defense taken by the husband was that he was that the act was consensual in nature and occurred in the privacy of their house. 
• Thus, this matter was posed before the Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the defence of consent is a valid defence to the act of assault in the present facts? 

Observations 

• The court distinguished R v Brown (1993) by noting that the sadomasochistic activities in that case involved extreme risk and potential for serious injury, leading to convictions under S.47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861 Act. 
• The actions of Wilson lacked any aggressive intent, making them factually incomparable to those in R v Brown (1993). 
• It was held that consensual activities between a husband and wife in the privacy of their home should not be subject to criminal investigation or conviction. 
• Consent was deemed a valid defense to Section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861 when there was a consensual relationship between the parties. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. 

Conclusion 

This is a very important judgment where the Court upheld the validity of consent in private, consensual acts between spouses, distinguishing them from acts posing extreme risks, and quashed the conviction.