Facts
The child survivor was aged 9 years old, when her uncle raped her and criminally intimidated her not to disclose this act to anyone. Over the next three years, the accused committed rape upon the child survivor on two more instances. The child disclosed about the abuse 3 years later and a FIR was lodged against the accused. The accused was convicted under section 376(2)(f) and section 506 IPC by the trial court. The accused dissatisfied by the verdict appealed to the High Court mainly on two grounds, (i) there was an inordinate delay of three years in reporting the case to the police, (ii) it was impossible that such an incident would have occurred in the house where so many family members lived.The High Court was convinced with the arguments of the defence and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction.The acquittal was appealed by the survivor before the Supreme Court. The court rejected all the grounds for acquittal relied on by the High Court.
Judgment
The court held that it is well settled that testimony of the survivor is essential in cases of sexual offences. And unless there exists compelling reasons to delve into corroboration, the courts contain the power to convict the accused relying solely on the testimony of the child survivor. However, the testimony has to inspire confidence. The court also held that minor contradictions of irrelevant facts are immaterial as long as material particulars are in sync.
Further, that court added that seeking corroboration before relying upon the testimony in such cases adds insult to injury. The court further stated that reluctance on part of the child survivor in not narrating the incident to anyone for a period of 3 years is understandable. Likewise delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR by the mother of the child after eliciting the information from the child survivor is inconsequential. Specially so as the accused was the child survivor’s uncle and it is not easy to lodge a complaint of this nature considering the prevalent social stigma.The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and convicted the accused under section 376(2) (f) and section 506 of IPC.