Introduction
The Supreme Court criticized the Rajasthan High Court for setting aside the rape conviction of a minor solely because she remained silent during cross-examination. The Court ruled that a silence of minor victim due to trauma cannot benefit the accused.
Case Background
The case dates back to 1986 when a minor girl was raped. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the IPC. However, the Rajasthan High Court overturned the conviction in 2013, citing the victim’s silence during testimony. The High Court ruled that, without her direct statement, the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt.
The State challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court. The Court expressed shock at how the High Court disregarded medical and circumstantial evidence in favor of the accused.
Petitioner’s Stance
The prosecution argued that the victim’s silence did not weaken the case. They pointed out that medical and circumstantial evidence strongly supported the conviction. They also argued that a child’s inability to testify should not automatically absolve an accused.
Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in relying solely on the victim’s silence. It emphasized that trauma often prevents child victims from speaking about their abuse. The Court referenced past rulings where convictions stood despite the victim’s inability to testify.
The Court also criticized the High Court for revealing the victim’s name in its judgment, violating privacy norms.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court reinstated the accused’s conviction and sentenced him to seven years in prison. Given the prolonged delay, the Court chose not to remand the case to the High Court.
The Court condemned the 40-year-long wait for justice, calling it a “matter of great sadness.” It reaffirmed that the absence of a child victim’s direct testimony does not invalidate a conviction when other strong evidence is present.
