Why Aadhaar card discrepancy backfired on rape accused as Gauhati High Court doubles payout for survivor

Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Pranjal Das noted that the accused was trying to show the survivor as a “major”, but his efforts ultimately strengthened the prosecution’s case. (Image is enhanced using AI)

“Considering the sustained abuse faced by the victim since tender years and the likely impact on her emotional state, we are of the view that the victim compensation amount should be enhanced and therefore, the victim compensation amount is hereby enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000 lakh,” the court said while dismissing the man’s appeal on January 21.

Findings

• A discrepancy between the survivor’s date of birth on the Aadhaar card and in the birth certificate is noted. In the Aadhaar card, the birth year is 2006, while on the birth certificate, it is 2010.
• However, the Aadhaar card has the actual date of birth, as her age was reduced for the birth certificate for academic purposes.
• The discrepancy regarding the survivor’s date of birth does not materially affect the case, because even going by the date of birth of 2006, the survivor was a “minor” at the time of the first abuse and the sustained abuse subsequently.
• The accused’s effort to procure the survivor’s date of birth, trying to show her as a “major”, rather strengthened the prosecution’s case.

• The survivor’s testimony, supported by her statement recorded before the magistrate, can be relied upon and is “cogent, consistent and stood its ground in cross-examination”.
• There is no scope for showing any leniency and making any modification in the sentence awarded by the trial court.

Background

• The survivor stated that she was living in her elder brother‘s house, where the accused, her related brother, sexually assaulted her when she was only eight years old.
• When she was left alone in the residence on an occasion, the accused came and forcefully raped her and threatened to beat her if she raised any complaint against him.
• The survivor claimed that she was sexually assaulted by the accused on different occasions between 2014 and 2021.
• Subsequently, the survivor lodged an FIR in 2021 against the accused.
• Later, the trial court in 2024 awarded a 20-year rigorous imprisonment to the accused along with a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to be given to the survivor.

Arguments

• The accused’s representative, advocate D Mazumdar, argued that the prosecution was not able to prove its case convincingly before the trial and hence, the conviction and sentence are bad in law and fact.
• Mazumdar argued that the prosecution’s story about the survivor being raped in the house of her elder brother, when other family members were present, raises doubts regarding its veracity.

• He further submitted that there is a discrepancy regarding the survivor’s age in her Aadhaar card as well as her birth certificate, and pointed towards the possibility of the survivor having a different age from what has been projected.
• It was further stated that the evidence, including the testimony of the survivor, is not of such a quality that it can be relied on to attribute guilt to the accused.
• On the contrary, the states’ counsel, additional public prosecutor L Hago, argued that the prosecution had cogently proved its case before the trial court.
• Hago said that the testimony of the survivor, including her statement before the magistrate, has been consistent and trustworthy, and the testimony of the survivor itself sufficiently proves the prosecution’s case.
• He submitted that the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced for his “heinous crime”.