On August 6, 2026, the Bombay High Court overturned the trial court's decision in State of Goa vs Tarunjit Tejpal 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 366 and found Tarunjit Tejpal guilty of rape. This decision was based on new evidence rather than outdated beliefs. The trial court had judged the survivor's credibility using an unspoken standard: a woman who does not fight back, leaves the attack scene instead of staying, and struggles to cope in the days that follow. Justice Gokhale labeled this standard a myth, pointing out that it has existed in Indian courtrooms for years without leading to change. The Tejpal ruling is important because it highlights these persistent patterns, which have continued despite almost thirty years of the Supreme Court urging judges to move away from them.
The idea of the ideal victim.
Criminologist Nils Christie introduced the concept of the "ideal victim" in 1986. This phrase refers to an individual whom society will entirely acknowledge as a victim only if she is seen as vulnerable, innocent, engaged in respectable activities at the time, assaulted by a stranger, and capable of garnering sympathy without being perceived as a threat. Christie focused on the legal system's framework rather than individual prejudices. Legal systems and the public do not respond to harm in a general manner; they react to narratives. Some narratives align with societal perceptions of who is deemed a victim, while others do not. For instance, a survivor who was intoxicated, had a prior relationship with her attacker, did not report the incident right away, or continued to communicate with him afterward does not conform to this narrative. These circumstances do not alter the nature of the crime itself, but they influence how credible a fact-finder finds her account.
In what ways has the standard of the 'ideal victim' influenced court decisions in India?
India had its own understanding of this concept long before Christie made it famous. In the case of Tuka Ram v State of Maharashtra (1979), the Supreme Court acquitted two police constables accused of raping a young woman in a police station. The Court argued that the absence of injury marks showed "peaceful submission" instead of resistance. It also considered her previous relationship with her boyfriend when deciding whether she consented to an assault by a stranger. This ruling, made in 1979, led to an open letter from four legal scholars and sparked a nationwide movement. This movement resulted in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1983. This amendment created a rule that assumes non-consent in cases of custodial rape. It also banned the disclosure of the survivor's identity. Despite the new law, the belief from the Mathura case persisted. Many still think that "true" rape involves visible resistance and see consent as a trait rather than an event. Bhanwari Devi (1992), in the gang rape of a social worker, the Jaipur District and Sessions Court acquitted the accused of gang rape in 1995, arguing that it was improbable for upper-caste men to compromise themselves by engaging sexually with a Dalit woman. The survivor's caste made her an unlikely 'ideal victim' in the eyes of the court. However, this case ultimately led to the creation of the Vishakha guidelines and the later enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Jindal case, 2017: A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in an interim order, suspended the sentences and granted bail to three former law students who were convicted of gang raping and blackmailing a classmate, characterizing the survivor's behaviour as having a deviant streak. The bench recognized that the allegations of intimidation and blackmail added a significant dimension to the offence, but interpreted her statement as suggesting an alternative conclusion of misadventure rooted in a promiscuous attitude and a voyeuristic mindset, centring her sexual behaviour in its evaluation. In the current case, State of Goa vs Tarunjit Tejpal 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 366 of the Goa Sessions Court observed multiple inconsistencies in the survivor's accounts, stating that although she claimed to be in shock and trauma after exiting the lift on November 7, 2013, the CCTV footage portrayed her as composed and smiling. Each judgment required a display of trauma from the survivor and regarded any deviation from expected behaviour as a reason to question her credibility rather than truly examine the evidence.
Where the statute tried to close the gap
The change in legal practice happened gradually and was mainly influenced by court decisions. In the case of State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that a rape conviction could rely only on the victim's testimony. The Court stated that needing corroboration should be a matter of caution, not a strict requirement. It also pointed out that trial courts often mistakenly viewed minor inconsistencies and delays in reporting as major issues, even though these do not affect credibility. The Court explained that families often take time to decide whether to report a sexual assault, focusing on reputation and social standing first. Gurmit Singh has become the key legal standard for all future rape appeals in India and is frequently cited, making its principles accepted law rather than just a correction to previous practices.
After the 2012 Delhi gang rape, Parliament took important steps to improve the legal system. The Justice Verma Committee was formed soon after and criticized the "two-finger test." This test, used to check if a survivor had been subjected to sexual intercourse, was found to be scientifically invalid and unfair. The Supreme Court had already shared similar concerns in the case of Lillu alias Rajesh v State of Haryana (2013). The Court said this test violated a survivor's rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and dignity. They also noted that a woman's sexual history does not matter when considering her consent. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act starting on July 1, 2024, bars the use of a survivor's past sexual experiences or character in sexual offense trials. This change eliminates the line of questioning that judges used to find important. In theory, the idea of the "ideal victim" has been challenged. However, there is still a gap between what the law says and how it is practiced. In 2022, a Supreme Court review revealed that the two-finger test was still used nearly ten years after the Lillu case. This gap between the law and practice shows that the stereotype of the perfect victim still exists. Although Indian law no longer supports this stereotype, some judges, doctors, and prosecutors still rely on it, as it makes it easier to deal with evidence.
The way things are evolving at present.
In 2025, the former Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, expressed regret on behalf of the judiciary regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mathura case, referring to it as a moment of institutional shame.
On August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court published "Judgments and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgments," a report created by a five-member expert panel led by former Justice Aniruddha Bose. Chief Justice Surya Kant endorsed it and instructed all courts to adhere to its recommendations. The report analyses 125 trial court rulings from various parts of India. It highlights trends of insensitive language, stereotypical reasoning, and courtroom behaviour that further traumatize victims during the adjudication of their offenses.
The 'ideal victim' concept illustrates why Indian courts have consistently evaluated a complainant's status, caste, past sexual history, and behaviour after the assault rather than focusing on the evidence presented. The High Court's decision on 6 August is the first appellate judgment to identify that concept as the reason for labelling a trial verdict as misguided, applying the Supreme Court's report from 3 August 2026 concerning gender sensitivity in judicial writing to a practical outcome. What remains unaddressed is that this correction happens only on appeal, years following an acquittal, and that a report on judicial writing does not impose the same obligations on a trial court as a statutory prohibition does.
Author is a Research Scholar at School of Law, SGT University, Haryana. Views are personal.