In this case, the Supreme Court deliberated on important issues relating to sexual assault and its evidentiary requirements under criminal law. The Court highlighted that the absence of bodily injuries does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault and emphasized the need to consider victims' responses to trauma through a nuanced and empathetic lens. The present case pertains to the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC, which was upheld by the High Court before being challenged before the Supreme Court. The primary issue for consideration was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, the daughter of PW-1, with the intent of subjecting her to illicit intercourse. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, and the High Court upheld this conviction. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecutrix (PW-2) in her testimony admitted that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant. Furthermore, her younger sister, who allegedly saw her leaving with the appellant, was not presented as a witness by the prosecution. The FIR was lodged with considerable delay, casting doubts on the credibility of the prosecution’s claims. Medical evidence presented by PW-3 showed no signs of injury or sexual assault. Additionally, the prosecutrix’s age was determined to be between 16-18 years, making it uncertain whether she was a minor at the time of the incident. Given this ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant.
The Supreme Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023) to reaffirm that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and that victims react differently to trauma. The Court noted that trauma responses are deeply individual. Some victims may exhibit outward signs of distress, while others may remain calm or silent due to fear, stigma, or helplessness. It is a misconception that sexual assault necessarily leaves physical injuries. Fear, shock, and social conditioning often prevent victims from resisting or reporting the crime immediately. The absence of physical injuries or immediate outcry should not form the sole basis for discrediting the victim’s account.
However, in the present case, there was no evidence to establish coercion or force, undermining the charge under Section 366-A IPC. Regarding the charge under Section 363 IPC, the prosecution’s failure to present a key witness and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the prosecutrix’s age further weakened the case against the appellant. Considering the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the Court found no justification to sustain the conviction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and quashed the impugned judgment. The appellant was discharged of his bail bond, and the appeal was allowed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction must be based on clear and substantive evidence, rather than assumptions or delayed allegations, ensuring fairness in criminal jurisprudence.