Facts
The present writ was filed by the Petitioner organisation, which provides legal, medical, residential, psychological, or any other help, assistance, or charitable support for women. They prayed that “sexual intercourse” as contained in Section 375 of the IPC should include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration, and object/vaginal penetration, and such cases should be investigated by the State and booked under Sections 375, 376 and 376A to 376D of the IPC accordingly.
Judgment
The Supreme Court did not broaden the definition of Section 375. However, they recognised the need to lay down certain guidelines to protect survivors of sexual abuse when they are recording their statements. Hence, it directed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) shall, in addition to the offences mentioned in the sub-section, apply in the inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 354 and 377 of the IPC. The guidelines prescribed for holding a trial in a case of child sexual abuse or rape were: (i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the survivors or any vulnerable witnesses do not see the body or face of the accused; (ii) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of the accused, insofar as they relate directly to the incident, should be given in writing to the presiding officer of the court, who may put them to the survivor or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not embarrassing; (iii) the survivor of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in court, should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required. These directions were in addition to those given in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.