SHOULD STATEMENT OF THE RAPE VICTIM ALWAYS BE TAKEN AS GOSPEL TRUTH?
INTRODUCTION
When a human frame is defiled, the “purest treasure”, is lost.
The dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. Rape is a crime against the body of a woman which is her own temple. We must be conscious of the fact that such offenses suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. Reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished.
Rape by the nature of the offense is an obnoxious act of the highest order. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. Undoubtedly, when a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but a deep sense of some deathless shame. Rape cases are sensitive and sans any doubt, such crimes reflect the lack of sensibility towards dignity, the elan vital, of a woman.
But the mooting question which needs to be pondered is whether an accused can be convicted for the offense of rape merely on the proposition that the case is very sensitive. It has been seen that on many occasions the counsel(s)/advocates argue before the Court that the matter is very sensitive and they try to inspire the confidence of the Court by making the “sensitivity of the matter” as the cynosure of their argument, which must not be appreciated by any Court.
We know that the false implications in criminal cases are not unknown to the legal fraternity. This article will delve deeply into answering this question by analyzing the various court judgments wherein the courts have very pertinently highlighted that the sensitivity of the matter cannot be the sole ground to prove the guilt of the accused.
Whether the statement of the prosecutrix should always, without exception, be taken as gospel truth?
Supreme Court in the case of Raja v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506, held that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always be without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this is that the test of time proclaims that though generally, the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physical assault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine, and automatic acceptance thereof results in an unwarranted conviction of the person charged.
Sometimes in the matters related to offenses under POCSO, the allegation seems to be the result of whimsical, imaginative, and motivated reasons, which is highly fanciful and improbable. Often a child is being used as a pawn to compel the accused to yield to the demands for the property, etc. Well, in matters where sexual offences are alleged, that too against minor victims, it is necessary for the Court to be sensitive to their plight.
Though the Court ought to be sensitive, that does not mean that the allegations ought to be accepted as the gospel truth in every case. It’s high time that the Court must always be cautious of false allegations for the purpose of achieving ulterior objectives. Tutoring a witness at the hands of the parents, especially when the victim is a child, cannot be ignored as the liberty of the individual is at stake, the Court has to be wary of depriving innocent persons of their liberty.
The gravity of the evidence of the prosecutrix as an injured witness
Often the Court lends its anxious consideration towards the testimony of the prosecutrix which necessarily remains the fulcrum of the prosecution’s case. The evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation, and other physical outrages is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. The testimony of the victim in such cases, though it commands great weight, but the same cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration.
In Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 751, the Apex Court stated that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in Section 114-A of the Evidence Act (Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), is sometimes extremely restricted in its application compared to the sweep & ambit of the presumption under Sections 113-A (now Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Court held that if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.
Moreover, in the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92, it is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.
CONCLUSION
It should be borne in mind that nowadays, there is a tendency to implicate innocent people in criminal cases with serious allegations of sexual assault. If the police find that the allegations of such women against men are false, they should very well take action against the complainants also within the boundaries of the law.
It pains to pen down the reality that the police miserably fail to take necessary action against false cases filed by women against innocent persons. The damages caused to a citizen because of false implication cannot be compensated by payment of money alone. His integrity, position in society, reputation, etc. is ruined by a single false complaint.
Recently the Kerala High Court in the case of Noushad K v. State of Kerala (Bail Appl. No. 2241 of 2025) highlighted that investigation of a criminal case means investigation of the case of the complainant and the accused. There cannot be any unilateral investigation of the case put up by the complainant alone. Merely because the de facto complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that, in all cases, her versions are gospel truth, and the police can proceed based on her statement without considering the case of the accused. It is the duty of the police to separate the chaff from the grain, before submitting final reports in criminal cases.