Gopal's Gaffe: A Case of Misconception of Consent under Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act

Dude, so you gotta hear about this news story that I stumbled upon at 2:47 AM. It was about the infamous Gopal Anand murder case (2015), where a man was killed by his own friends because the victim had 'consented' to a fight. However, the prosecution successfully argued that the 'consent' was not valid because the victim was under duress. This case is literally a textbook example of Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act, which says that a person's consent cannot be taken as valid if it's induced by a threat, fear, or some coercion. I was so excited to learn about this concept in our CrPC class, and now I see it in action! Can someone explain to me how this applies to real-life scenarios?