DATE: 07/03/2025
BENCH: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B Varale
FACTS:
The case pertains to an incident that occurred on March 19, 1984, at around 9:30 A.M., when the prosecutrix went to the accused's house to conduct tuition classes for two girls. According to the prosecutrix, while one of the girls went to the bathroom and the other was sent by the accused to fetch water, the accused entered the room where she was working, latched the door from inside, and forced her onto the bed. Despite her attempts to raise an alarm, the accused gagged her mouth with a cloth and proceeded to assault her. The prosecutrix tried to resist and escape, but the accused held her by force and committed rape. The girls later returned and knocked on the door, but the accused refused to open it. Eventually, the grandmother of the girls intervened, and the prosecutrix was brought downstairs. Following the incident, the prosecutrix informed her family, but their initial attempts to report the crime were met with threats from the accused's family and local residents. A written report was later filed, and a case was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following an investigation, the accused was charged, and the case proceeded to trial. The Trial Court, after examining multiple witnesses, convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, in its judgment dated March 22, 2010, upheld the Trial Court’s decision, confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 323 IPC while acquitting the accused under Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is the decision of the Trial Court convicting the accused and which was later affirmed by the High Court. The issue were that the conviction by the High Court was on false premise.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the accused's conviction under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC. The Court maintained the sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC and six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. Additionally, the Court directed the competent authority to consider the appellant's case for remission in accordance with the applicable state policy within four weeks.
The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony to be credible, consistent, and trustworthy. Despite being subjected to extensive cross-examination, her account remained firm and unshaken, describing the incident in detail and establishing the accused's involvement. The Court emphasized that the absence of major injury marks in the medical evidence did not weaken her testimony, as physical injuries are not always necessary to prove rape, particularly when resistance is suppressed through force or threats. The prosecutrix’s delayed reporting was also deemed justified, given the threats she faced from the accused and his family.
The Court further rejected the appellant's attempt to discredit the prosecutrix by questioning her mother's character, holding that such allegations were irrelevant to the core issue of whether the accused committed the offence. Citing established legal precedents, the Court reaffirmed that a rape survivor’s testimony holds the same value as that of an injured witness and can form the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence. The Court concluded that the appellant’s defence lacked credible evidence, and there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that the testimony of a rape survivor holds substantial evidentiary value and can form the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and inspires confidence. In this case, the Court highlighted that the prosecutrix’s account remained consistent and unshaken throughout her detailed cross-examination. By relying on established precedents such as State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, the Court reaffirmed that minor discrepancies or the absence of physical injuries do not automatically discredit a victim’s testimony. The Court's reliance on these rulings reflects its commitment to ensuring that survivors are not subjected to additional trauma through undue skepticism, especially in cases where intimidation and fear of social stigma delay the reporting of the crime.
Moreover, the Court’s rejection of the appellant’s attempts to malign the prosecutrix's mother as a means to discredit the victim’s testimony emphasizes the judiciary’s focus on safeguarding the integrity of sexual assault trials. The Court correctly held that such unrelated character attacks bear no relevance to the accused's guilt or innocence. By affirming the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of examining sexual assault cases with sensitivity, ensuring that survivors receive justice without their credibility being undermined by societal biases or irrelevant conjectures. The Court’s directive for the competent authority to consider remission aligns with its balanced approach of upholding justice while considering the passage of time since the incident.
info@adhwaitha.com
