The Supreme Court of India clarified that proof of bodily harm is unnecessary to prove a sexual assault case this announcement functioned to correct widespread misunderstandings about sexual assault requirements. Here are the key facts from the case: The Court determined a case involving appeal of Section 363's (Kidnapping) along with Section 366-A (Inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code [Sections 137 (Kidnapping) along with Section 96 (Inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse of BNS, 2023]. The victim testified about her own willingness to accompany the appellant and her missing sibling who witnessed the event remained absent from the proceedings. Medical testimony confirming the absence of physical damage to the victim enabled the Court to underscore its position that no bodily harm is a requirement for sexual assault prosecution. The Court noted that victims react to trauma in varied ways due to factors such as fear, shock, and social stigma. It stated: It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. Supreme Court Handbook Reference: The Court referenced its own Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), which highlighted the diversity in human responses to traumatic events. The Court found that Section 366-A was not applicable since the victim was not forcibly taken away. The available evidence failed to support preserving the appellant's conviction according to court findings. The appeal was allowed, and the previous judicial decision became void. The court decision highlights the need to understand trauma responses while confronting myths about sexual assault which appear in legal proceedings.