The onus is on the victim to prove she was violated

A few days ago, in a major departure from convention, the Supreme Court of India questioned in open court, two women who had alleged rape by persons acting at the behest of an industrialist. This judicial action was undertaken, ignoring provisions of Section 327 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), which makes an in camera hearing in rape cases mandatory. This probe, however, highlights two points. First it confirms the entrenched view that a rape victim cannot be trusted unless the court is nearly hundred per cent sure of the genuineness of her complaint. Which means, the burden of proof almost nearly shifts to the prosecutrix. Secondly, when it comes to the crunch, a victim cannot get away with flinging false and motivated allegations against an individual with whom she has had a strained relationship. This is in tune with the well known fact that false charges against men are not wholly uncommon.  

So far so good. But then there is the popular perception among women and voluntary organisations representing them that the jurisprudence is weighed against the rape victim, and as long as this remains, male aggressors and their crafty lawyers can demolish the most convincing of rape charges.

It is sad but true that the standard of proof required of a rape victim to prove her charge is unreasonably high in countries across the globe. This explains the poor rate of success of this heinous crime in a court of law. The Indian situation is especially galling, with more than two thirds of the cases that are sent to court after police investigation, failing. Another disconcerting feature of the scene is that many offenders who may not exactly have committed rape, but had been guilty of acts stopping short of it, also get away most of the time. 

It is this deplorable situation that drives some victims to desperation and to go public with their story. This is usually in the West where the cultural stigma attached to a rape victim is a little less. Two recent happenings in the US are very germane to the issues I have raised here.

The New York Times published recently a very touching piece by Professor Jenny Wilkinson, a veterinarian and a lecturer in equine science at the University, who had, as early as May 1997, suffered an assault by a fellow student at the University of Virginia. The university was content with censuring the aggressor and placing a letter to this effect in the personal file of the student. Prof Wilkinson was appalled by this lenient penalty. It was the professor who has been bearing the cross, because of the popular belief in her circles that she was under the influence of liquor and had wittingly or unwittingly given credibility to the defence theory that this was a case of consensual sex.

A more recent case has again raised a national debate on campus violence against women. This was sequel to a story (November 2014) that appeared in Rolling Stone, a fortnightly that focuses on popular culture.

According to the magazine, there was a gang rape, again at the University of Virginia, a few years ago. After it was confirmed that the alleged rape case was the product of a mischievous mind, Rolling Stone apologised last week for the horrible mistake. This, undoubtedly, undermined public confidence in theories emanating from US campuses that the situation was deteriorating rapidly.

Both the incidents heighten the plight of faculty and students, as well as the pressures that work on them. My view is that the situation is equally, if not more serious in our campuses and workplaces. Media vigilance has helped a little, but not enough to stir national conscience.

The writer is a former CBI Director