'Socioeconomic Status Govern Citizens' Fate': Allahabad HC Notes Struggles Of Disadvantaged Rape Survivors In Lodging FIR

A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the sufferings of such victims often begin much before the trial, that is, at the very first step of trying to get their voice heard by lodging an FIR regarding the incident.

“Unfortunate as it is, it is a hard reality of life that at times social and economic status govern the fate of citizens in such matters. Disadvantaged persons such as 'R' (P.W.-1) and 'S' (P.W.-2) may be made to wait and may thus have been forced to make many efforts to get their FIR lodged,” the Court remarked as it highlighted the barriers that marginalised victims face.

Furthermore, responding to the argument raised by the defence regarding the absence of crucial evidence (the victim's clothes worn at the time of the incident) in the case, the Court offered a humane and realistic perspective in this regard.

The division bench said that it is wholly natural to expect that the rape survivor, a poor girl, would have washed her clothes that she had worn at the time of the occurrence.

“It is another unfortunate reality of life that a poor victim of rape may not have a luxury to keep safe, evidence of such heinous offence suffered. Clothing though a basic necessity of life, is very precious and it comes at a heavy price to the poor,” the bench remarked.

Furthermore, the Court also addressed another issue regarding the absence of independent witnesses in such cases, as it noted that the witnesses tend to walk away from the victim for their comfort.

It remarked thus:

“…at present, civilization values may not have refined enough and may not be strong enough for Courts to necessarily expect that independent witnesses would not fall prey to societal pressures and practices when approached by offenders or to ignore that generally, people tend to walk away from the victim if not for any threat, only for the sake of personal convenience and comfort, or not finding time for Courts, as a witness.”.

Briefly put, it was the prosecution's case that on the intervening night of 26th and 27th October 1996, while 'R' (husband of the victim 'S') was away for work, the accused forcibly entered their house around 2 in the night, caught 'S' by her throat, threw her down from the bed, and forcibly committed rape on her.

The FIR in the matter came to be lodged on November 9, that too after several attempts were made by 'R', who claimed due to the fact that the accused was a dangerous person with criminal links and 'R's status as a person from the oppressed class, the police took no action in the case.

Based on the evidence led during the trial, the accused was convicted for rape, house-trespass and offence under the SC/ST Act, and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine.

Challenging his conviction, the accused, who remained in actual custody for about six months, moved the HC contending that the FIR is wholly belated and the prosecution's story is inherently false and improbable and that no injury had been caused to the victim.

On the other hand, the AGA for the state submitted that the statement of the victim was wholly truthful and reliable, she did not make any material improvement upon the version of events originally narrated in the FIR and that her statement at trial remained consistent and trustworthy.

As for the absence of injuries on the victim's body, the AGA submitted that the FIR never alleged external injuries, and since the victim was a married woman and mother of two children and hence, the absence of internal injuries was not material.

Furthermore, it was submitted that since the FIR was lodged after 13 days, external injuries that may have been visible with a prompt medical examination could not be proven.

Analysing the evidence and the facts of the case as well as the surrounding circumstances, the High Court found that that the statement of the victim had proved the occurrence of rape suffered by her, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court, however, added that since it was not proved that the offence had been committed on the victim because she was a member of the Scheduled Caste, the Court concluded that the offence under the SC/ST Act was not proven and hence, the appellant was entitled to a clear benefit of doubt with regard to that offence.

Furthermore, noting that the appellant is about 70 years of age now and has remained confined for about six months (in all), the bench modified his sentence from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' simple imprisonment.

Appearances

For Appellant: Advocates Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, AK Prajapati, Anand Priya Singh

For Respondent: AGA Archana Singh