No one has licence to violate woman’s body: Orissa High Court upholds man’s conviction in rape case

Background

• The prosecution alleged that in June 1999 when the victim had gone to a nearby jungle to collect mushrooms she was picked-up by the accused and was allegedly raped.
• Subsequently FIR was registered and a case under Section 376 of IPC was initiated.
• The Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar convicted the accused for the offence of rape and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment.
• The order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar.

Findings

• It could be that the rape survivor was detained by the convict, who continued to commit such other mischief finally ending with the sexual intercourse spreading over a period of couple of hours and therefore, to claim that, it was improbable to indulgence in an act or rape for so long should not receive much attention.
• Absence of any struggle during the act of rape is the basis to claim that her evidence is not trustworthy. It should not be forgotten that the survivor was aged about 16 and 17 years by then and the convict was a young man and was armed with a knife and for that, it was quite not possible for her to physically oppose him and challenge the sexual mischief.
• An inconsistency in the evidence is a contradiction if it goes to the root of the case. If the surrounding circumstances with the evidence received unerringly suggests that the prosecution is able to prove the case, the court should accept the evidence as a whole and not to reject the same.
• The defence also made an attempt to show that the survivor is accustomed to sexual intercourse and a girl of easy virtue. Such a plea of the defence was rejected by the courts below and rightly so.
• No such evidence has been adduced from the side of defence on such a plea alleging her character.
• None can have any license to violate a woman’s body even of easy virtue as she is entitled to her privacy and right to live with dignity and therefore, any such evidence regarding sexual mischief committed on her should not be disregarded or to be thrown overboard.
• The said aspect has been taken cognizance of by the trial court and the conclusion is, therefore, absolutely correct and that too when, there has been no evidence to show that she was of loose character.
• It was argued that two witnesses, parents of the victim, are interested in the outcome of the case and hence, their evidence should not be accepted without independent corroboration.
• Even though they are the parents of the victim and of course interested witnesses, that by itself is not sufficient to discard their evidence.
• The interested witnesses more often than not support the prosecution case but by no means, their evidence is to be doubted.