Sexual Assault, Rape, And Molestation Prosecutions
1. Legal Framework in India
Rape (Section 375 & 376, IPC)
Section 375 IPC defines rape and lays out the conditions under which sexual intercourse constitutes rape.
Section 376 IPC prescribes punishment for rape, varying based on circumstances (general rape, gang rape, custodial rape).
Sexual Assault / Molestation
Section 354 IPC: Assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Section 354A IPC: Sexual harassment (includes workplace harassment, stalking, etc.)
Section 354B to 354D IPC: Specific forms of sexual assault like voyeurism, stalking, and disrobing.
Section 377 IPC (partially struck down for consensual acts in 2018): Covers unnatural offenses, including non-consensual sexual acts.
Procedure
FIR (First Information Report) under Section 154 CrPC
Medical examination of victim
Recording of statement under Section 164 CrPC
Trial in Sessions Court (rape is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable).
2. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: The accused gang-raped a girl.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that gang rape is an aggravating factor, meriting severe punishment, including death penalty in the rarest of rare cases.
Significance: Established that sexual assault violates not only physical autonomy but also dignity, and the law must provide deterrence.
Case 2: Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518
Facts: The petitioner challenged the inadequacy of the criminal justice system in dealing with sexual harassment and rape.
Judgment: Supreme Court recognized the need for fast-track courts and proper victim protection. It emphasized that victim testimony is sufficient even if there is no corroborative medical evidence.
Significance: Strengthened victim-centric approach and procedural safeguards.
Case 3: State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2000) 2 SCC 735
Facts: Accused was convicted of rape and appealed claiming consent.
Judgment: Court ruled that mere absence of resistance does not imply consent; the context, age, and situation are considered.
Significance: Clarified that consent must be free, voluntary, and informed.
Case 4: Bharatha v. State of Kerala (1997) 3 SCC 747
Facts: Minor girl was sexually assaulted by a family member.
Judgment: Court held that sexual assault on minors is a grave offense, and courts must prioritize rehabilitation and protection of the child.
Significance: Reinforced stringent punishment under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO, 2012) principles (later codified).
Case 5: Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts: Accused argued delayed reporting should discredit victim testimony.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that delayed reporting is not fatal to prosecution; trauma and fear are valid reasons for delay. Testimony of the victim has primacy.
Significance: Reduced reliance on rigid procedural barriers, focusing on substance over form.
Case 6: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335 (illustrative procedural relevance)
Facts: While not purely rape, it laid down the guidelines for FIR registration and investigation in serious offenses.
Significance: Ensures that sexual assault cases are not diluted during preliminary investigation; police must register FIR promptly without undue skepticism.
3. Key Takeaways from Case Law
Victim Testimony is Critical: Courts rely heavily on victim accounts, even without corroborating medical evidence.
Consent Must Be Clear: Absence of resistance ≠ consent; consent must be explicit.
Delayed Reporting is Acceptable: Courts understand trauma and fear prevent immediate reporting.
Aggravating Factors Increase Punishment: Gang rape, custodial rape, or assault on minors invoke higher sentences.
Procedural Safeguards: Victim protection, fast-track courts, and careful investigation are essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments