Bodily Injuries Are Not Essential to Prove Sexual Assault
The Supreme Court ruled that bodily injuries are not required to establish sexual assault. The Court emphasized that victims respond to trauma differently, and expecting uniform reactions is unfair and unrealistic.
Court’s Judgment
A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti overturned a High Court decision upholding a conviction under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court noted that the victim’s testimony suggested voluntary involvement with the appellant and found no evidence to support claims of forceful abduction.
The Court also highlighted the absence of physical injuries and stated that this does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault. It referenced the Supreme Court’s 2023 Handbook on Gender Stereotypes, which stresses that trauma responses vary due to fear, stigma, and helplessness.
Key Observations
Trauma affects victims differently, and there is no “correct” way for survivors to react.
Social stigma often prevents victims from coming forward.
Absence of injuries does not invalidate a victim’s testimony.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that proving sexual assault does not require evidence of bodily injuries. It highlighted that the absence of injuries cannot negate the survivor’s testimony. This judgment reinforces the importance of focusing on consent and survivor accounts. It ensures justice by prioritizing the dignity and rights of victims.
This judgment highlights the need to challenge stereotypes in sexual assault cases and focus on evidence rather than assumptions.
