Bombay High Court disapproves trial court's passive approach allowing defence to put graphic details to rape victim during cross examination

The manner in which the defence conducted cross-examination of a rape victim by giving graphic details of the act under the garb of giving suggestions, recently drew the ire of the Bombay High Court (Ranjeet Shahaji Gade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra).A Bench of Justices Sadhana S Jadhav and SV Kotwal observed that line of questions put to the victim an hardly be called as proper cross-examination“Under the garb of giving suggestions, graphic details of the act were put to the witness," the Court said in disapproval.Pertinently, the Bench expressed its disappointment at the trial judge’s “passive approach” in allowing such questions.The Court noted that the victim was sobbing at one point during cross-examination and that was when the trial judge ought to have intervened and stopped that line of cross examination..“We are more pained because of the passive approach adopted by the learned Judge in allowing these questions. These suggestions crossed all lines of basic dignity,” the Bench expressed..We are more pained because of the passive approach adopted by the learned Judge in allowing these questions. These suggestions crossed all lines of basic dignity.Bombay High Court.The High Court cited Section 152 of the Indian Evidence Act, to emphasise that the trial court was duty bound to forbid any questions which appeared to be insulting or annoying.The Bench underscored that it was the duty of the trial judge to tell the witness not to answer questions which may seem improper or leading to an imputation against the witness’ character..The Court also expressed its displeasure at the Special Public Prosecutor inaction for not having objected to the suggestions.However, such observation aside, the Bench lauded the sincere efforts taken by the trial court to conduct and conclude the trial..Factual matrix leading to the first information report happened in April 2010 when the victim was abducted by the three accused, Ranjeet Gade, Ganesh Kamble and Subhash Bhosale who raped her.After she was left near her house, the police who were hunting her after a missing report was filed, took her for medical examination, recorded her statement and registered the offence of rape against three accused..During trial, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, while the defence of the accused continued to be of total denial..Bhosale, who had criminal antecedents, stated that the intercourse with the victim was consensual while the others were falsely implicated.He stated that because the police had a grudge against him, even though the victim was not willing to lodge an FIR, they forced her to do so..The appellants were convicted for offences under 376(2)(g) (rape during communal violence), 506 (criminal intimidation), 366 (abduction) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Pune Sessions Court..The prosecution case basically rested on the version of the victim, who the Bench concluded was a truthful witness. “There are no infirmities in her evidence at all,” the order stated..After perusing the medical evidence, the Court concluded that there was no scope to argue that the allegations were an afterthought. .Based on the evidence submitted, the Bench was convinced that the “prosecution has established its case against all the accused beyond all reasonable doubt” and proceeded to dismiss the appeals..[Read Judgment]