Courts must be sensitive while dealing with cases of Rape, Sexual assault, Supreme Court

Courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity, the Supreme Court stated..The top court also ruled that courts may look for evidence that lends assurance to a victim’s testimony in a rape case if it is difficult to place implicit reliance on the statement of the victim..The Bench of Justice NV Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, delivering the judgment in the case Sham Singh v. the State of Haryana, laid down that the Courts have the responsibility to deal with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults with utmost sensitivity and responsibility..As regards statements of the victim, they have to be appreciated by the Courts in the background of the entire case and if for some reason, the testimony of the victim alone is difficult to be relied upon, then the Court should look for evidence to back the testimony..“If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults.”.The judgment also goes ahead to state that Courts must be alive to the fact that “no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.”.In light of this, the judgment said that a reliable prosecution case should not be thrown away merely on the ground that there are minor discrepancies in the statement of the victim. Such discrepancies should not come in the way of making a reliable case unless the discrepancies are indeed fatal to the case..“The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.” .The Court also pointed out in unambiguous words that seeking corroboration of a victim’s statement even before relying on it “amounts to adding insult to injury.”.Facts of this case.A minor girl was allegedly raped by her two cousins. The prosecutrix was staying at the residence of her paternal uncle and aunt at the time of the alleged incident..The prosecution’s version is that when the victim stepped out of the house, she was approached by the two accused who took her inside their house, tied her to the cot with a rope and committed rape on her. Subsequently, it was said, that the victim was threatened by the mother of the accused against speaking about the “incident” and was fed some liquid to make sure she had no memory of the incident..Next day, the victim was found unconscious outside a neighbour’s house and was spotted by the milkman. An FIR was filed based on these allegations and the accused were later charged under Sections 376 (2)(g), 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal code..Conviction in Lower Courts.The Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) of the Fast Track Court in Faridabad initially acquitted the accused but an appeal against this acquittal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court remitted the case back to the trial court which, this time, found the accused guilty and convicted them..The conviction was upheld by the High Court. One of the accused persons served his full term. However, the other accused, Sham Singh, approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision of upholding the conviction..What the Supreme Court held.The Supreme Court, on considering the material placed before it, observed that material evidence was not considered by the courts below while deciding the case. The families of the accused and the victim had an enmity between them, the milkman and the neighbour outside whose house the victim was found unconscious were not examined and the Court below disbelieved the defence version altogether..The version of the defence was that one of the accused persons found some love letters in possession of the victim and enraged by those, he slapped her. A panchayat was conducted after this incident wherein the accused apologized for slapping the victim..This was not considered by the lower courts. Additionally, it was also argued that the offence of rape could not have been committed inside the house, especially when the other family members were present inside..Court also observed that there was no medico-legal test to support the claim of the victim. The basis for the High Court to uphold the conviction was the apology tendered by the accused before the Panchayat and the same was treated as a confession of rape..Holding that the statements of the victim were unreliable and there was lack of incriminating evidence against the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant..“The findings of the court below, though concurrent, do not desire the merit of acceptance or approval in our hands with regard to the glaring infirmities and illegalities vitiating them, and the patent errors apparent on the face of record resulting in serious and grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant.”.The Court concluded that the offence of rape was unfounded and the conviction by lower courts was based on conjectures and surmises..Read Judgment: