The sexist attitudes of a patriarchal society ensure that convictions in rape cases in India are rare. The recent Supreme Court judgment, convicting the accused solely on the basis of the complainant’s testimony, is therefore a welcome departure from the norm
The sexist attitudes of a patriarchal society are in full play in legal proceedings that have to do with the rape of a woman. Two standard arguments — that the woman “consented”, and that the rape survivor was of bad “character” (implying that she was a “bad” woman, habituated to intercourse) — are the mainstay of the defence for the accused in most rape cases.
Strong protests by women’s groups, following the acquittal of the policemen in the Mathura rape case in the ’80s, brought about certain changes in the law pertaining to rape. However, despite changes about presumption with regard to absence of consent in certain categories of rape, and prohibition of impeaching the character of the prosecutrix/rape survivor, prevalent attitudes in society have ensured that little has altered at the ground level.
The abysmally low conviction rate in cases of rape bears testimony to this state of affairs. The recent Supreme Court judgment, delivered on July 25, 2007, in B C Deva versus State of Karnataka, 2007 (9) SCALE 338, with regard to appreciation of the testimony of the woman, is therefore a welcome one.
The prosecutrix and her mother and father worked on the Athoor Coffee Estate in Karnataka. They lived in a labour colony on the estate. The accused, Deva, worked as a handyman on the estate. On March 28, 1991, the prosecutrix and her mother went to the estate to pick coffee seeds. The father went to drive the tractor. At lunch, the prosecutrix went home to eat. She was returning to the estate, carrying a lunchbox for her mother, when the accused suddenly came up behind her and dragged her a distance of around 10 feet inside the coffee plantation. He put his left hand over her mouth and laid her on the ground under the coffee plants. According to the prosecution, the accused then sexually assaulted and raped the prosecutrix and ran away.
The prosecutrix immediately informed her mother about the incident. She decided to commit suicide as she was unable to bear the subsequent trauma and dishonour. She jumped into a water tank on the estate. Shashappa, Yashodhara and two other people who were carrying out repairs in the pump house near the tank heard a noise and rushed to the water tank where they saw the prosecutrix struggling in the water. They pulled her out of the tank. When questioned, the prosecutrix told them that the accused had sexually assaulted her and that she had wanted to commit suicide.
The prosecutrix and her parents went to the estate writer of the coffee estate and told him about the incident. The estate writer advised them to lodge a police complaint. The prosecutrix and her parents went to the police station and did so. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered and the victim/survivor was sent to the Madikeri government hospital for a medical examination. The prosecutrix was examined by the deputy surgeon and a gynaecologist, whose medical opinions were recorded.
The next day, on March 29, 1991, the investigating officer visited the place where the incident had allegedly taken place. The accused was arrested in the market and his underwear seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The accused was sent for a medical examination, and, after completion of an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against him before the court.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of rape. It sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The high court, after a re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
It was contended before the apex court that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It was further submitted that, according to the medical opinion of the doctors, there was no evidence of physical injury on the victim/survivor, therefore the prosecutrix’s version of events could not be believed. Finally, it was contended that the trial court had erred in relying on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, and that her evidence could not be found to be believable and reliable without independent corroboration. The submission on behalf of the state was that the prosecution had clearly established the guilt of the accused, and that the trial court and the high court had both given well-reasoned judgments; there was no need for interference by the apex court.
The Supreme Court analysed all the oral and documentary evidence on record. It observed that the prosecutrix had clearly narrated the sequence of events that occurred on March 28, 1991, on the coffee estate. She had given details of the forced sexual assault committed on her. She had also related the entire incident to her mother, along with her feelings of shame, the possible impact on her reputation, and the anxiety she felt about marriage to a respectable boy. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the prosecutrix had been consistent and clear regarding her testimony and description of the chain of events. The suggestion, on behalf of the accused, that the case had been lodged due to enmity was denied by the prosecutrix; the accused had not put forward any material to substantiate this defence. In view of the ‘overwhelming trustworthy versions of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses’ the court rejected the plea that a false case had been lodged out of enmity.
The judgment then addresses the attempt by the accused to build up a case that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, as she did not make any effort to resist and the doctors had not detected any signs of injury on any part of her body. The court examined the subsequent conduct of the accused and noted that the prosecutrix had rushed to her mother and related the entire episode to her. That the victim/survivor had felt so depressed, humiliated and disgraced that she had taken the extreme step of trying to end her life by jumping into a water tank.
The court found the prosecutrix to be a trustworthy witness, and her testimony plausible. The judgment records the finding that the narration of the incident, as given in the complaint, stands corroborated by the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, her mother and father and independent witnesses who pulled her out of the water tank. The court observes that the absence of semen stains on the underwear of the accused and the victim/survivor could not be given importance under the circumstances. The underwear of the accused had been seized by the police the day after the incident, and there was no evidence to show that it was the same garment as that worn on the day of the incident. The absence of semen stains on the undergarments of the prosecutrix could have been due to the fact that she had got soaked in the water tank and that the stains had been washed away.
The court categorically declared that the absence of any injury on the body of the prosecutrix or on the accused did not lead to any inference that the accused had not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the woman. The judgment notes that the gynaecologist’s report did not disclose evidence of sexual intercourse, and holds that even in the absence of medical evidence the oral testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be ‘cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy’ and had to be accepted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding of guilt of the accused as recorded by the trial court and the high court.
