Girl's Screaming and Injuries Not Necessary; SC Draws Line in Rape Cases
The Supreme Court recently clarified that the absence of physical injuries does not confirm that a crime did not occur in cases of sexual assault. The highest court of the country also made it clear that it is not necessary for the victim to scream or shout. The court believes that the victim's response in such cases depends on various circumstances. It also mentioned that the social stigma and fear associated with sexual assault often create significant barriers for victims in disclosing the incident. The bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, stated, "It is a common myth that sexual assault should result in physical injuries. Victims experience mental trauma in various ways. They may be affected by fear, trauma, social stigma or helplessness. It is neither realistic nor fair to expect the same response in every case.
The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant obstacles for women, making it difficult for them to share the incident with others." The court, in its judgment, referred to the Supreme Court's "Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023)," which emphasizes that different individuals respond to traumatic events in different ways. For example, one person may openly cry when losing their parents, while another may not show any emotion publicly in the same situation. Similarly, a woman's response to sexual assault or rape may depend on her individual traits. There is no single right or appropriate way to respond in such cases. In a case, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an accused who was alleged to have kidnapped a girl for marriage. The accused, Dalip Kumar (also known as Dali) had challenged the Uttarakhand High Court's decision from March 29, 2013. The court had convicted the accused under sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC. In the FIR filed in 1998, the accused's name was not initially included, but later, he was charged with sections 363, 366-A, 366, 376, 149 and 368 along with other accused. The session court acquitted the accused of serious charges but convicted Dalip Kumar and another accused under sections 363 and 366-A.
Emphasizing the importance of the victim's testimony, the bench noted that the victim's statement was the most crucial evidence. The victim stated that discussions regarding marriage with the accused were happening but her father rejected it based on caste. During cross-examination, the victim clearly stated that she had voluntarily decided to go with the accused. The victim's younger sister, Sarita had seen her with the accused near the school but she was not presented as a witness. Additionally, the court pointed out that the FIR, filed on March 18, 1998 was registered the following day at 7 p.m. although the incident took place at 3 p.m. The court also referred to medical evidence, where the doctor reported no physical injuries or swelling on the victim. The victim was considered physically normal, and there was no evidence of sexual assault. The doctor also stated that the victim was between 16 and 18 years old. Based on the evidence, the court concluded, "It is clear from the evidence that there is no basis to establish the charge of kidnapping under section 366-A in this case. Therefore, the accused's conviction cannot be upheld."
