Nowadays No Assumption That Rape Victims Always Tell The Full Truth: Allahabad HC
Key Observation by Allahabad High Court
Case: Abhishek Bhardwaj vs. State of UP (Bail Application, Judgment dated January 8, 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh
Core finding: While the statement of the prosecutrix (rape victim) must be treated with primary consideration, courts should not automatically presume that every part of her account is entirely truthful, especially in light of evolving societal dynamics.
The judgment further highlighted that:
The victim had been in a prolonged extramarital relationship with the accused.
Evidence suggested she willingly went with the accused and remained in the relationship despite alleged earlier incidents.
Her failure to object immediately after the claimed assaults raised doubts about the coercive nature of the acts.
The court noted she was capable of understanding the morality and significance of her actions.
Therefore, the Bench granted bail, taking into account:
The nature of evidence,
The trajectory of the relationship,
The accused’s lack of criminal antecedents, and
No likelihood of tampering or absconding.
Legal Significance & Implications
1. Primary Consideration vs. Presumption of Truth
Primary consideration means the victim’s statement must be respected and examined earnestly.
However, the judgment emphasizes that courts should not convert this into an unqualified presumption of truth.
2. Balanced Evaluation of Evidence
The ruling promotes contextual analysis, where both victim and accused’s narratives, behavior, surrounding circumstances, and corroborative evidence are evaluated without bias.
3. Influence on Bail Proceedings
While the judgment relates to a bail application, it sets a precedent:
Bail decisions must not rest solely on the prosecutrix's testimony when there are credible contradictions or counter-evidence.
The court must safeguard the fairness of proceedings by evaluating all relevant aspects.
4. Guarding Against Blind Trust in Narratives
The observation aligns with a broader judicial insight that accusing narratives, however sensitive, are not infallible.
Courts must ensure justice is served without pre-judgment while remaining empathetic and nuanced.
Public Reaction & Higher Court Intervention
Though this judgment focused on the truthfulness of statements, the Allahabad High Court faced criticism in a separate, controversial ruling—where it suggested a rape survivor “invited trouble.” The Supreme Court rebuked that commentary as "insensitive" and "inhuman," emphasizing the need for judicial sensitivity, especially in sexual violence cases.
Closing Thoughts
The Allahabad HC’s judgment in Abhishek Bhardwaj vs. State of UP is significant for:
Underscoring that while victim statements are crucial, they are not beyond scrutiny.
Advocating a balanced judicial approach—neither dismissive nor unquestioningly credulous.
Reinforcing fairness in bail and trial proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments