SC’s latest intervention addresses rape victims’ distrust of police. But answer lies in police reform.
Through its directive to police officers to produce rape victims before a woman judicial magistrate within 24 hours of learning about the alleged crime, the Supreme Court has sought to facilitate fast-track trials involving Section 376 of the IPC. The court has also suggested the police could skip recording victims’ statements, since they are, in any case, inadmissible in court. There is merit in the court’s proposal to limit a rape victim’s deposition to a judicial officer alone. Statements before the police are often not made in the most conducive circumstances, and can be used to contradict and negate what the rape victim may say before a judicial magistrate. While taking suo motu cognisance of the Birbhum gangrape earlier this year, the SC had noted how the deputy superintendent of police recorded the statements of the victim as many as three times within a week, and that too in a cursory manner. Inconsistencies in a rape victim’s statement, however minor, can be manipulated by defence lawyers in a haranguing cross-examination. In this context, the court’s guidelines will serve as a confidence-building measure for victims of sexual crimes.
Speedy trials, or more importantly, procedurally sound ones, cannot come from fast-track courts or judicial directives alone. Without police reforms — which state governments must take up in earnest — the procedure for collecting and marshalling evidence will hinge entirely on the integrity of investigating officers. For enduring reform, the issue of sexual crimes must be addressed with greater urgency at the political level, and measures must be taken to insulate police functioning from influential interests.
