Rape verdicts depend on judicial perception

The success of the government's aim to make laws relating to rape more stringent largely depends on the judicial perception of the gravity of the offence. Rarely is there any eyewitness to rapes. Medical evidence for the purpose of confirming that a rape has been committed on a woman and her own testimony are the two crucial pieces of proof that decides the fate of a rape accused.

However, it has been observed that in many cases judges have shown misplaced sympathy for confirmed rapists. If that is the case then any law would be of little effect as it is the judicial perception and the court's discretion that matter a lot in a multi-tier justice dispensation system.

"It is a serious blow to her (the rape victim's) supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It denigrates and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience," a judge had said, while asking the judicial forum not to be lenient in sentencing a rape accused and those found guilty of other heinous crimes like hired killings of women and sexual assaults on them. 

In another case, the apex court rejected a High Court's concern for reducing the sentence on the ground that the accused was an "unsophisticated" and "illiterate citizen belonging to the weaker section of the society". Moreover, he was a "chronic addict to drinking and had committed the rape while in a state of intoxication and that his family is dependent on him".

"The measure of punishment in a case of rape couldn't depend on the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually-assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act," the apex court said in an attempt to correct judicial perception of the offence.  When the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a rapist on the ground that the victim had already lost her virginity, the Supreme Court reminded the court that  "the rapist is on trial and not the sexually-abused helpless victim''.

Assuming she had "lost her virginity" earlier, it did not and cannot in law "give license to any person to rape her", the court added.

Even if the victim was "promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier", the Bench said she had the right "to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone". A woman is not "a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone", it added.  When the Madhya Pradesh reduced 10 years jail term awarded by a trial court to a rapist to mere nine months, it justified its decision saying the rapist had suffered a long trial and had also offered to marry his victim of lust.

The Supreme Court restored the original term of 10 years and observed, “The mere existence of a discretion by itself does not justify its exercise…not awarding a just punishment might provoke the victim or her relatives to retaliate in kind and that is what exactly is sought to be prevented by the criminal justice system.”

Once the Karnataka high court had reduced the sentence of 10 years awarded to a 49-year-old rapist, Krishnappa, to four years on the ground that “he was under the influence of alcohol while committing the crime”. Krishnappa had to suffer full 10 years' term on the apex court's intervention.

It would be travesty of justice “to show mercy in cases of such heinous crimes”, an anguished court headed by the then Chief Justice A S Anand said. Justice Anand now heads the National Human Rights Commission.