Case – State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996
Fact
A girl below the age of 16 years was kidnapped by Gurmit Singh and other 3 accused when she was returning after appearing in Exam of 10th class at 12.30 p.m. on March 30, 1984. She was taken to the ‘kotha’ of the Tubewell and raped. She was again raped at night.
Next morning, they dropped her in front of school. After appearing in exam, she went to home and narrated all facts to her mother and mother narrated these facts to father. Father immediately called Panchayat, but he was unable to get justice from Panchayat. Panchayat tried to compromise. Finally, FIR was lodged.
Issue
Whether “Rape” had been committed by accused?
Contentions & Judgement:
- A rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault. It is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.
- Even if the prosecutrix has been promiscuous in her sexual behavior earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone.
- Even victim was accustomed to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of “loose moral character” is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case should be cast against such a witness by the Courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the Court.
- Section 327 of Cr.P.C. 1973 must always keep in mind. Trial of rape cases in camera should be the rule and an open trial in such cases is an exception. It would enable the victim of crime to be a little comfortable and answer the questions with greater ease in not too familiar a surroundings.
- The victim is required to repeat again and again the details of the rape incident not so much as to bring out the facts on record or to test her credibility but to test her story for inconsistencies with a view to attempt to twist the interpretation of events given by her so as to make them appear inconsistent with her allegations. The Court, therefore, should not sit as a silent spectator while the victim of crime is being cross-examined by the defence. It must effectively control the recording of evidence in the Court.
- Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience.
- The Court held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof.
The alarming frequency of crime against women led the Parliament to enact Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 to make the law of rape more realistic:
- By the Amendment Act, Sections 375 and 376 were amended and certain more penal provisions were incorporated for punishing such custodians who molest women under their custody or care.
- Section 228 A was also inserted which prohibits disclosure of identity.
- Section 114-A was also added in the Evidence Act for drawing a conclusive presumption as to the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape, involving such custodians.
- Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the right of an accused to an open trial, was also amended by the addition of sub-sections 2 and 3 after renumbering the old Section as sub-section (1).
They were convicted for offences under Sections 363/366/368 and 376 IPC. The name of the victim was not disclosed due to Section 228A, IPC.
