Delay in cases involving rape victims prolongs their suffering: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that any unnecessary delay in the cases involving rape victims only prolongs their suffering and obstructs the delivery of timely justice [Mohit Yadav vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi]..Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma remarked further that each moment spent waiting for justice only worsens the suffering endured by rape victims. "In cases involving rape victims, any unnecessary delay in the legal process only serves to prolong the victim's suffering and obstruct the delivery of timely justice. The trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault is profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain," the Court's order stated. .The Court added that a delay in the cross-examination of the victims results in “additional unjustified emotional strain” on them as they are forced to re-live their traumatic experiences repeatedly.“This delay in administration of justice not only interferes with their healing process but also prolongs their journey towards closure and recovery of such traumatic experience,” the Court said.The Court also stressed on recognizing the emotional toll of such delays and treating the survivors with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings..The Court made these remarks while upholding a trial court’s order imposing a cost of ₹25,000 on an accused for filing an application for a duplicate copy of DVDs (Digital Versatile Disc) containing certain conversations between him and a rape victim.The Court took a strong view of the fact that the cross-examination of the victim had been completed after a prolonged period of seven years and that the accused was now seeking further postponement of the trial on the pretext of losing crucial evidence..The Court further noted that the DVDs had been earlier received by the counsel representing the accused. The Court observed further that the application seeking a duplicate copy of the same was preferred only after the discharge of the victim as a witness.“The claim by the accused, after several years, of having lost a crucial piece of evidence i.e. the DVD containing alleged conversations between the accused and the victim – appears to be a calculated attempt to exploit the legal process, as the accused was given the same DVR on various occasions previously,” it said.The Court also remarked that the conduct of the accused in the case demonstrates a pattern of repetitive attempts to delay the trial.By repeatedly filing applications for being provided with the same evidence, it appears that the accused was attempting to manipulate the system for his benefit, the Court added..Observing that the victim should not be made to suffer due to the carelessness or manipulative tactics of the accused, the Court went on to observe, “It is unjust for the victim to bear the consequences of any negligence or misconduct on the part of the accused. The legal system must balance the rights and well-being of the victims and fair trial to the accused. However, at the same time, the accused also has to remain accountable for his actions, if the same point out towards deliberate delay. By upholding these principles can the legal system fulfill its duty to ensure a fast and fair judicial adjudicatory process.".With regard to the costs imposed by the trial court, Justice Sharma said the same was not excessive and rather serves a purpose beyond mere financial penalty.“While the amount may seem exorbitant to the accused, it is intended to send a clear message that attempts to prolong legal proceedings and trial through unnecessary delays will not be allowed. By imposing these costs, the Court aims to deter parties from engaging in tactics aimed at stalling or obstructing justice,” it said..Terming delays the silent enemy of truth and fairness in the halls of justice, the Court went on to remark that such deliberate attempts to prolong legal proceedings must not go unchecked.The Court opined that such attempts not only undermine the integrity of the judicial process but also inflict additional hardship on all the parties involved, particularly the victim.“Therefore, the Courts impose costs as a means of discouraging such behaviour and ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and without undue delay,” the Court said, while upholding the trial court order..Advocate Viney Sharma represented the petitioner (accused).Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Sharma represented the State..[Read Judgment]