The Supreme Court on Monday restored the conviction of two men under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for rape of a 12-year-old girl..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma held that minor procedural defects could not be allowed to overturn consistent victim testimony and medical evidence and therefore, set aside a Patna High Court ruling that had acquitted the two men.The Court began its ruling by underlining the systemic failure that occurs when procedural loopholes are used to free those guilty of heinous sexual crimes.“It is always a matter of utter failure for the system as a whole when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the knowledge of the victim and without any control of the victim,” the Bench said..The case stemmed from a 2016 complaint filed in Bihar's Bhojpur after the victim was found to be three months pregnant. She told her parents that she had been raped multiple times by the respondents, who threatened to kill her if she disclosed the assaults. A trial court convicted both men and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life.On appeal, the Patna High Court acquitted the accused. It found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case including the absence of precise proof of the victim’s age, errors in the framing of charges, and the joint trial of the two men under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This prompted the victim’s father to move the apex Court. .The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view. It held that minor variations in documents and testimony were natural and could not be exaggerated into reasonable doubt, especially when the victim’s evidence was consistent across her police statement, her deposition before the magistrate and her testimony in court.The Court said such inconsistencies must be assessed with sensitivity to the realities of victims from rural and marginalised backgrounds.“In rural regions, discrepancies in the educational and identification documents are not unknown and, in such circumstances, the Courts must be sensitive to the ground realities of the society, so as to ensure that the intent of the law is not suppressed and protections created by the legislature reach the intended persons in their right spirit,” the Court said..On the question of age, the Court noted that the victim was shown to be between 12 and 15 years across oral and documentary evidence, none of which was challenged in cross-examination.The Court also found the medical reports and abortion records consistent with the victim’s disclosure of repeated assaults beginning since 2016. It rejected the High Court’s doubts on this issue as misplaced.The Bench warned against treating minor lapses in charge framing or joinder of trials as fatal to convictions.“Not every mistake is fatal,” the Court said, cautioning trial judges and prosecutors to be vigilant but also stressing that appellate courts must weigh whether a real failure of justice occurred.It also criticised a culture of expecting perfect evidence in sexual offence trials.“There is nothing like perfect evidence in a Court and in fact, perfection is often suggestive of tutoring and manufacturing of evidence,” the Court said.The judgment highlighted how women and child victims of sexual crimes are doubly victimised, first by the offence itself and later by insensitive or overly technical application of procedure.“The struggle for sensitivity towards offences against women, children and other marginalized groups passes through various phases of evolution. At times, the victims find themselves pitched against a system full of insensitive stakeholders and at other times, the victims find themselves in conflict with the procedural intricacies of the laws in place,” the bench observed..The appellant was represented by advocates Daksha Kumar, Tanishq Mehta, Deepak Kumar, Ankita Baluni, Sonakshi Monga and Aftab Ali Khan.The respondents were represented by advocates Talib Mustafa, Raksha Agrawal, Divyansh Mishra, Kumar Saurav, Lzafeer Ahmad BF, and Manish Kumar..[Read Judgment]
