Upholding a man’s conviction in a 39-year-old rape case, the Supreme Court has commiserated with the woman and her family, who had to wait so long for closure. 

“It is a matter of great sadness that this minor girl and her family have to go through nearly four decades of life, waiting to close this horrific chapter of her/their lives,” said the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s July 2013 verdict acquitting the man.

The woman, who was a minor in 1986, was raped by  a 21-year-old man. In November 1987, he was convicted by a trial court and given a seven-year jail term.

Over the years, the case ran the gamut of various court-rooms till it ended in the Rajasthan High Court, which acquitted him citing the lack of strong statements from prosecution witnesses, including the assaulted child. 

“The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial judge records that ‘V’ (victim) was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more,” the bench said.

But this cannot be counted as a factor in favour of the accused, the judges said. The silence of the child had stemmed from the trauma.
The silence of a child cannot be equated with that an adult survivor, which again has to be weighed in its own circumstances, the judges said.

A child “traumatised at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her” cannot be the basis on which the accused can be put behind bars”. It would be unfair to “burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution,” the judges said.

The bench said there was no hard and fast rule that in the absence of a condemning statement, a conviction couldn’t stand, particularly when other evidence–medical and circumstantial–was available.

Referring to its verdicts on child survivors of sexual assault, the bench said the first appellate court, the high court was expected to independently assess the evidence before confirming or disturbing the findings of the court below.

The top court also expressed surprise over the manner in which the high court dealt with the matter and frowned upon the survivor being named in its verdict throughout.

The accused was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court, if not already served, the judges said.