LI Network
Published on: November 16, 2023 at 15:50 IST
The Telangana High Court recently underscored that in cases of rape involving minors where no corroborating evidence exists, the trial court must ascertain the precise meaning attributed by the child victim to the term ‘rape’. This observation was made in the case of [Kathula Vasu v. State of Telangana].
“When the victim is a child and in one word, she states that ‘rape’ was committed, it would become imperative in such cases when there is no other corroborating evidence, to know from the victim girl as to what is meant by her narration of ‘rape’,” the Court stated.
Justice K Surender highlighted that when a victim, especially a child, alleges rape, the court may seek clarification by posing questions as outlined under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
“The said understanding of the victim as to what is meant by the word ‘rape’ by the Court concerned is for the reason of the specific requirements given under Section 3 of the [POCSO] Act of 2012 as to what constitutes penetrative sexual assault and what constitutes ‘rape’ under Section 375 IPC,” the judgment elucidated.
The Court made these observations while overturning the conviction of an accused under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Instead, the accused was convicted under Section 8 (sexual assault) of the Act and sentenced to three years in jail.
The appeal stemmed from a trial court judgment that sentenced the accused to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape of a minor girl. The defense argued the absence of corroborative medical evidence, while the prosecution contended that the victim’s statement sufficed for conviction.
Examining the victim’s statement, which mentioned the accused pressing her chest and “forcibly committing rape,” the Court asserted, “The use of the word ‘rape’ by the victim girl in the present circumstances cannot be the sole basis for the Court to assume or draw an inference that penetrative sexual assault had taken place.”
The Court emphasized the need for caution in such cases, especially when there is no corroborating medical or oral evidence.
It stated that the court must rely on the victim’s testimony only if it inspires confidence and stressed the responsibility on the court to carefully infer from the admissible evidence regarding the allegation of rape.