When actor Shiney Ahuja reportedly claimed that he had consensual sex with his maid, he was giving one of the two standard arguments offered by the defense to wriggle out of a rape case. Since the testimony of the alleged victim has, however, been corroborated by medical reports and circumstantial evidence, the actor is unlikely to escape conviction.

Except when the victim is below 16 years, a rape case is based essentially on the premise that the sexual intercourse took place against her will or consent. Having approached the police within hours of the alleged crime, the maid gave Ahuja no chance of denying the very act of sex because of the available forensic evidence.

So, Ahuja seems to have done what a lot of other rape accused around the world are apt to do, claim that she had consented to have sex with him. The other common ploy adopted by the defence in rape cases is to attack the character of the victim and make out that the act was actually the result of her sexual promiscuity.

The Supreme Court also did its bit to live down the Mathura blot, as evident from a spate of convictions in recent years mainly on the testimony of the rape victim (or prosecutrix, as she is formally called). While the case against Ahuja is reportedly buttressed by medical reports, there have been instances where the apex court has thought it fit to hold the accused guilty although the medical reports have shown no evidence of sexual intercourse.

The court ignored such a medical finding in the B C Deva case of 2007 because the victim had soon after the rape jumped into a water tank in an attempt to commit suicide. Since they otherwise found the victim to be a trustworthy witness, the judges declined to give the benefit of doubt to the accused merely because her undergarment did not have any semen stains. They said that the semen stains may have been washed away when the traumatized victim had jumped into the tank.

This was consistent with the general pre-disposition in favour of the rape victim declared by the apex court in the 2006 verdict against one Om Prakash. It said that while examining broader probabilities, judges should not ``get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix to throw out an otherwise reliable case''.