Supreme Court overturns Rajasthan High Court acquittal of man in 1986 rape case

The Supreme Court recently restored the conviction of a man previously acquitted by the Rajasthan High Court for the rape of a minor girl in 1986. [State of Rajasthan v. Chatra]

The High Court had in 2013 set aside the conviction of the man merely because the child could not speak and kept shedding tears while being cross-examined.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vikram Nath took serious exception to the fact that the High Court in a mere six-page judgment had overturned the conviction of the trial court without independently assessing the evidence on record.

"We are surprised with the manner in which this matter was dealt with by the High Court. As the First Appellate Court, the High Court is expected to independently assess the evidence before it before confirming or disturbing the findings of the Court below," the Court noted.

It further stated that while ordinarily such cases with glaring infirmities are remanded back to the High Court, the present case warranted an immediate decision by the Supreme Court since the victim had already been deprived of justice for 40 years.

"In ordinary circumstances, given the fleeting consideration bestowed on the merits of the matter, an order of remand to the High Court for consideration afresh, could have been a permissible view, however as already noted supra the genesis of this case is 40 years old, and, therefore, justice would not be served by adopting this approach, especially taking note of the fact that an appeal of the year 1987 was disposed of by the impugned judgment in the year 2013. In other words, it took twenty-six years for the criminal appeal to be disposed of," the judgment stated.

On March 3, 1986, the child prosecutrix was discovered unconscious and bleeding from her private parts by eyewitness Gulab Chand. Chand spotted the accused at the scene, partially undressed and fleeing immediately upon being noticed. The victim's mother, who had been to a nearby village to attend a funeral, had left the victim under the guardianship of the accused. The victim was about 6 years old when the incident occurred.

The trial court had convicted the accused in 1987 based on medical evidence and witness testimonies, but sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment instead of ten years due to his age and status as a first-time offender. However, in 2013, the High Court overturned this conviction, citing inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of corroborative forensic evidence and absence of testimony on behalf of the victim.

Criticizing the High Court's approach, the top court noted that the prosecution's case doesn't collapse merely due to the absence of direct testimony from the child witness (prosecutrix), especially when she had recently undergone a traumatic experience.

"The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial Judge records that ‘V’ was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony regarding the commission of the offence. This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the respondent. The tears of ‘V’, have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the respondent. The silence here is that of a child. It cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances."

The Court further emphasised that trauma and distress should not be misconstrued as a lack of testimony. It noted that rather than viewing the victim’s response as an inability to recall events, the High Court should have considered the deep psychological impact of the crime.

"In these facts, ‘V’ has not turned hostile. Trauma has engulfed her in silence. It would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution. A child traumatized at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her has to be relieved of being the basis on which her offender can be put behind bars."

The Supreme Court also found fault with the High Court’s approach to the eyewitness and medical evidence. The trial court had convicted the accused based on the testimony of an eyewitness and medical reports confirming grievous injuries to the victim’s private parts. However, the High Court disbelieved the eyewitness account, citing discrepancies in minor details between the FIR and court testimony.

The Court further noted that the medical report confirmed injuries consistent with sexual assault, making it improbable that the victim sustained them by accident.

The judges also observed that, surprisingly, the High Court had disclosed the victim’s name throughout its order, despite numerous precedents explicitly discouraging this practice to protect the victim's privacy in such cases.

"We note with some surprise that the High Court has referred to the victim by name throughout. This Court in judgments, going at least a decade further back from the date of the impugned judgment, has highlighted the importance of abiding by such a restriction, preserving the privacy of the unfortunate victim..."

Ultimately, while allowing the State's appeal, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and reinstated the conviction of the accused after 38 years. The accused was asked to surrender within 4 weeks and serve out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court back in 1987.

The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak and Advocates Aman Prasad and Milind Kumar.

The respondent was represented by Advocates Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Anzu K Varkey and Pratima Yadav.

[Read Judgment]