Facts
Child survivor was below the age of 16. The 3 accused took her to the tubewell of one of the accused and then raped her. Medical records corroborated the fact she was raped. The trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds that (i) she could not explain the difference between a Fiat car, Ambassador car or a Master car; (ii) the investigating officer had “shown pitiable negligence” during the investigation by not tracing out the car and the driver; (iii) that the child survivor did not raise any alarm while being abducted (iv) that the story of abduction “has been introduced by the child survivor or by her father or by the thanedar just to give the gravity of offence” and (v) that no corroboration of the statement of the child survivor was available on the record and that the story that the accused had left her near the school next morning was not believable because the accused could have no “sympathy” for her.
Judgment
The Court held that with regards to testimony of survivors of rape, infirmities in the investigation by the investigating officer, delay in FIR or reluctance to call for help does not affect the credibility of the statement of the child survivor. The testimony of the survivor in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused. Furthermore, the character of the victim, litigation or enmity between the victim and the accused does not affect the credibility of child survivor’s statement. Trial of rape cases in camera should be the rule and an open trial in such cases is an exception.