This article conducts a critical examination of criminal law theories pertaining to sexual offenses, as well as a comparative analysis of consent and coercion doctrines throughout Bangladesh, Sweden, and India. Taking into account changing international human rights norms, this study investigates how different jurisdictions interpret and implement consent and coercion as aspects in sexual crime prosecution, revealing considerable variations due to unique socio-legal, cultural, and historical settings. In Bangladesh and India, consent theories are heavily established in patriarchal ideology, with victims frequently being held responsible for proving non-consent, whilst coercion doctrines are hampered by narrow definitions that jeopardize effective legal protection. In contrast, the Swedish legal system exemplifies a progressive affirmative consent test, emphasizing the importance of express, voluntary assent but also taking into account a larger variety of coercive elements such as psychological pressure and incapacitation. The analysis demonstrates how restricted understandings of consent and coercion in South Asian legal systems impair victims' rights while creating prospects for impunity, limiting victims' access to justice. Recognizing a more victim-centered approach in Swedish legislation that is more in accordance with international human rights benchmarks, this paper highlights critical policy reform outcomes. It proposes legal change and adjustment in Bangladesh and India to offer total protection from sexual violence, as well as the reform of consent and coercion doctrines to a affirmatively oriented approach. Overall, this comparative research emphasizes the need of culturally sensitive yet rights-based reforms in criminal law responses to sexual assaults as a means of advancing gender justice while also safeguarding victims' dignity across countries.
