New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the sole testimony and evidence of a rape victim is sufficient for the conviction of the accused. Her evidence does not require any corroboration including by a doctor, said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia.

"In a given case, even if the doctor, who examined the victim, does not find [any] sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix."

The Bench said, "in the normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose the offence even before her family members, much less before the public or the police. Indian women have a tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as the prestige of her family. Only in a few cases, the girl or the family members have the courage to go the police station and lodge a case."

The Bench was dealing with a case in which an accused, Om Prakash, was sentenced by the trial court — the verdict was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court — to 10-year imprisonment for raping a pregnant woman. His contention in the appeal was that he was not aware that the woman was pregnant and that the 10-year sentence was unwarranted.

Sentence reduced

Accepting his plea and reducing the sentence to seven years, the Bench said, "of late, crime against women in general, rape in particular, has been on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour." It was a sad reflection of the attitude of indifference of society to the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. "We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault — it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the hapless female."

Evidence Act no bar

The Bench said, "a prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime.

The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."

The judges asked the trial courts and High Courts not to disclose the name of the victim. "Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code makes disclosure of identity of the victim [of certain offences] punishable."

The Bench said: "Keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in judgments, be they of this court, High Court or lower court, the name of the victim should not be indicated."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail