New Delhi, July 09: The fate of Shiney Ahuja, accused in the rape of his maidservant, squarely depends on the quality and strength of the victim’s evidence in the fast-track court. The situation has risen in the wake of the Supreme Court saying that “corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the absence of
injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent”.
While Shiney has pleaded that the act of sex was consensual, what has to be seen in view of the apex court’s Tuesday judgment is whether the maidservant, who is an adult and is capable of giving consent, stands by all her statements during cross-examination before the trial court.
In a significant judgment relating to the rape of an ailing girl aged 18 by her neighbour in a village in Himachal Pradesh on January 1, 1996, the apex court said on Tuesday: “Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.”
The apex court bench of justices VS Sirpurkar and RM Lodha, while ordering the arrest of the accused Rajinder, who had been out on bail though he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and fine, observed: “While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix (victim), the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily, a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for.”
Rajinder, who had taken the girl out on the pretext of facilitating medical help but raped her on the way, defended his act by saying the girl had consented for sex. But the bench said the circumstances under which Rajinder, a small-time contractor, raped the girl “are neither sufficient nor justify discarding her evidence”. “There is nothing on record that creates any doubt or disbelief or suspicion about the evidence of the prosecutrix,” the court held. “[The absence of injuries on the rape victim] does not lead to an inference that she consented for sexual intercourse with the accused.
“The young girl became a victim of lust of the accused — who was more than double her age — and yielded to sexual intercourse against her will.” Recalling an earlier judgment, the bench said: “[A] rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process.
“Rape is not merely assault — it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The murderer destroys the physical body of his victim. Rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.”
–Agencies–