New Delhi, May 28
In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has refused to give a broader
meaning of word “rape” than defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code by including all forms of sexual abuses under its definition, saying that it will create confusion and will not be in the interest of the society.
“The first and foremost requirement in criminal law is that it should be absolutely certain and clear. An exercise to alter the definition of rape, as contained in Section 375, IPC, by a process of judicial interpretation, and that too when there is no ambiguity in the provisions for
enactment, is bound to result in a good deal of chaos and confusion, and will not be in the interest of the society at large,” the court ruled.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Mr Justice G.P. Mathur, however, laid down certain guidelines for trial courts while recording the evidence of rape victims in order to save them from humiliation during
cross-examination and also for the police regarding the investigation of any case of sexual abuse.
The apex court said the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should also apply in the inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 354 and 377, IPC. These Sections deal with sexual abuses other than the rape.
Besides, the court laid down three important guidelines for cross-examination of rape victims and witnesses, especially minor victims: Firstly, a screen or curtain be provided between the victim and the accused so that they could not see each other. It was necessary as the
victims were always vulnerable to threat and humiliation. Secondly, the questions put up to the victims of sexual abuse about the incident should be given in writing to judicial officer who may put them to the victim or the witness in a language that is clear and not
embarrassing. Thirdly, the victim of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in court, should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required.
The direction came on a public interest litigation (PIL) by a social organisation — Sakshi — working to provide
legal, medical, residential, psychological and other such helps to women and children of sexual abuse.
The court said the suggestions would advance the cause of justice and were in larger interest of the society.
At the same time the court suggested that Parliament should “give a serious attention” to the points highlighted by the petitioner and make appropriate legislation “with the promptness that it desires,” in view of the increasing number of cases of rape and child abuse in the country.
