A case of sexual assault, which occurred nearly four decades ago, has come to a conclusion after an arduous legal battle spanning 40 years.
The incident took place in March 1984 when a tuition teacher assaulted his student. Despite the trial court convicting the accused within two years, the case languished in higher courts for decades. The accused used a seemingly minor argument to delay the verdict, ultimately prolonging the suffering of the victim and the judicial process.
The trial court delivered its judgment in 1986, sentencing the teacher to prison, but it took 25 more years for the Allahabad High Court to uphold the ruling, followed by another 15 years for the Supreme Court to deliver a final verdict. Now, after a staggering 40 years, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, providing clarity on rape convictions.
The defence’s argument, that the absence of visible injury on the victim’s private parts meant the act could not be considered rape, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The accused also claimed that the sexual encounter was consensual, but the court found that there was sufficient evidence to convict him. A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale emphasised that the absence of injury marks on the private parts of the victim does not automatically invalidate the case if other evidence supports the victim’s testimony.
“It is not necessary that in each and every case in which rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution,” the TOI quoted Justice Varale as saying.
The victim, now an adult, had accused her tuition teacher of assaulting her when she was a young student. The Supreme Court reiterated that the testimony of a rape victim holds equal weight to that of an injured witness, and that a conviction could be based on the sole testimony of the victim, as long as the evidence aligns with the narrative.
In a significant ruling, the apex court dismissed the accused’s attempt to discredit the victim by attacking the character of her mother. The defence claimed that the victim’s mother was a “woman of easy virtue” and was making false allegations against the accused. However, the bench was firm in stating, “We find no reason to accept the contention that the alleged immoral character of the mother of the prosecutrix has any bearing on the accused being falsely roped in on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix,” the bench reportedly said.
While the trial court acted swiftly, delivering its verdict in two years, it took an alarming 38 more years for the matter to reach its conclusion in the apex court.
The assault took place on March 19, 1984, when the young girl, attending tuition at her teacher’s house, was sexually assaulted after the teacher locked her in a room. The teacher had sent two other girls out on errands, isolating the victim. Despite the victim’s attempts to alert others, it was only when her grandmother arrived that she was rescued. The victim’s family, however, faced immense pressure and threats from the local community and the accused’s family, leading to a delayed FIR filing.