Testimony Of Rape Survivors
🔹 Legal Background
The Indian legal system recognizes that survivors of rape often face trauma, social stigma, and systemic biases, and hence their testimony is afforded special evidentiary value. The law protects and empowers survivors by:
Treating the survivor’s sole testimony as sufficient for conviction (if found credible).
Restricting character assassination (Section 146 Proviso, Indian Evidence Act).
Mandating in-camera trials and non-disclosure of identity (Section 228A IPC, Section 327 CrPC).
Disallowing the controversial "two-finger test" as a measure of consent or sexual habituation.
🔹 Key Legal Provisions
| Statute | Relevant Provision |
|---|---|
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Section 114-A – Presumption of no consent in custodial rape cases |
| Section 146 Proviso – Prohibits questions about victim’s moral character | |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 375 – Definition of rape |
| Section 376 – Punishment for rape | |
| CrPC, 1973 | Section 164 – Recording of statement by Magistrate |
| Section 327(2) – In-camera proceedings in rape cases |
📚 Landmark Case Laws (More Than 5 Explained)
1. ✔️ State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The accused was convicted of raping a minor girl. The High Court acquitted him, citing lack of corroboration.
Held:
The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused.
Held that the testimony of the prosecutrix stands at par with an injured witness, and does not require corroboration unless it suffers from serious infirmities.
Observed that societal stigma and trauma make it highly unlikely that a woman would falsely implicate someone in a rape case.
Importance:
Set a strong precedent that the testimony of a rape survivor alone can be the basis for conviction, if found trustworthy.
2. ✔️ State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Accused was convicted of raping a girl, but the defense argued that the victim was of "easy virtue".
Held:
The court strongly rejected this argument.
Held that the character of the prosecutrix is irrelevant and consent must be free and voluntary.
Asserted that no self-respecting woman would fabricate a story of rape and undergo police and courtroom trauma without genuine cause.
Importance:
Affirmed that victim’s past sexual history is irrelevant to determining whether rape occurred.
3. ✔️ Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979) – Mathura Rape Case
Facts:
A minor tribal girl (Mathura) was allegedly raped by policemen in a police station. Trial court acquitted the accused, saying there were "no injuries", and that she was "habituated to sex".
Held:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, stating that the victim did not resist, so it could not be rape.
The verdict led to national outrage and widespread protests.
Impact:
Although the judgment itself is criticized, it led to major legal reforms in 1983, including:
Insertion of Section 114-A in the Evidence Act.
Amendments in IPC Section 376, especially in custodial rape cases.
Introduction of burden of proof shifting to the accused in certain rape cases.
4. ✔️ State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari (2004) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The accused was convicted on the basis of the victim’s testimony, but the defense argued lack of medical evidence.
Held:
The Court held that absence of physical injuries or medical corroboration does not negate rape.
Observed that delay in reporting, or absence of torn clothes, is not always fatal.
Mental trauma, not physical resistance, is often the real impact in rape cases.
Importance:
Clarified that rape can occur even without physical injuries, and survivor’s testimony is sufficient.
5. ✔️ Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) – Supreme Court
Facts:
Accused raped a woman in a secluded field. Trial court acquitted due to lack of witnesses.
Held:
SC convicted the accused, holding that corroboration is not a must in every rape case.
Also ruled that delay in FIR does not always cast doubt, especially if explained reasonably.
Importance:
Reiterated that lack of eyewitnesses or delay in reporting does not weaken the survivor’s testimony, if it is found credible.
6. ✔️ Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The trial court relied on "two-finger test" to declare the victim "habituated to sex", thus undermining her credibility.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that the two-finger test is unconstitutional, violates privacy and dignity of the survivor.
Reiterated that sexual history has no bearing on the case.
Importance:
Landmark judgment for bodily autonomy and privacy rights of rape survivors. Medical tests cannot override survivor’s testimony.
7. ✔️ Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) – Supreme Court
Facts:
The accused was convicted under Section 376. He appealed claiming the survivor’s statement was uncorroborated.
Held:
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld conviction solely on the strength of the survivor’s evidence.
Emphasized that judges must not approach rape survivor's evidence with suspicion.
Survivor’s testimony, if consistent and credible, is enough for conviction.
Importance:
Reiterated principle that survivor’s evidence = sufficient evidence, even without medical corroboration.
🧩 Summary of Legal Principles from Case Law
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Testimony of Survivor = Evidence | Courts accept it as substantive evidence; corroboration not mandatory |
| Past Sexual History is Irrelevant | Victim’s character cannot be questioned (Section 146 Proviso) |
| No Mandatory Medical Corroboration | Medical evidence is supportive, not essential |
| Delay in FIR Not Always Fatal | Delay can be explained and does not discredit the survivor |
| Two-Finger Test Prohibited | Unconstitutional and medically irrelevant |
| In-Camera Proceedings | To protect dignity, rape cases are heard privately (Sec 327 CrPC) |
🚫 Myths Rejected by Courts
| Myth | Judicial Rebuttal |
|---|---|
| Rape survivor must show injuries | False – Injuries not required for rape to occur (Shree Kant Shekari case) |
| Delay in FIR implies fabrication | False – Delay may be due to trauma, stigma (Om Prakash case) |
| Survivor’s past character matters | False – Section 146 Proviso and multiple judgments prohibit this |
| Two-finger test proves habituation | False – Declared unconstitutional in Lillu v. State of Haryana |
✅ Conclusion
Indian courts have evolved a progressive and survivor-centric approach in adjudicating rape cases. The testimony of a rape survivor:
Is treated as substantive evidence.
Does not require corroboration if trustworthy.
Is protected from character attacks and victim-blaming.
The judiciary now emphasizes dignity, autonomy, and the psychological impact of sexual assault, moving away from archaic notions of physical resistance and chastity. This approach is vital for delivering justice and reinforcing faith in the legal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments