'Violative Of Woman's Dignity U/Art 21': Allahabad High Court Rebukes Advocate Over Character Assassination Of Rape Victim

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that filing such pleadings, which contain scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman, violates the woman's right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"…this Court deprecates the conduct of the learned counsel for the appellant, who has adopted an improper and impermissible practice of annexing and relying upon affidavits containing scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman. Such pleadings are wholly unbecoming of an advocate and strike at the very foundation of ethical advocacy", the bench remarked.

The single judge also took exception to the conduct of the advocate for browbeating the court by openly stating that its order would be challenged before the Supreme Court.

Briefly put, the bench was dealing with the criminal appeal of one Bechan Prasad who challenged cognizance order and charge-sheet filed against him in connection with the trial of a case under Section 376 IPC and the SC-ST Act.

It is the prosecution's case that the victim, a married woman, had visited the appellant's clinic for treatment, where, on the pretext of administering medicine, the appellant made her consume a sedative pill and thereafter, he committed rape upon her.

Challenging the trial court's order of taking cognizance, the counsel for the appellant argued that the victim was habitual in blackmailing persons for extorting money.

To support his contention, the counsel for the accused also relied heavily on affidavits from five individuals who alleged the victim was a “woman of easy virtue”.

The AGA, on the other hand, submitted that the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded promptly, and that she consistently supported the prosecution's case.

It was contended that the charge-sheet was submitted on the basis of legally collected evidence and that the order taking cognizance does not suffer from any illegality.

High Court's observations

At the outset, Justice Anil Kumar recorded in the order that during the course of arguments, the Court repeatedly requested the counsel for the appellant to confine his submissions to the material available in the case diary, but he insisted on advancing submissions based on extraneous material.

The order notes that the advocate in question also stated in court that he would argue the matter at length and, if necessary, challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

The Court termed his conduct to be "clearly improper and contrary to established norms of advocacy". It also took exception to the language used in the affidavits filed by 5 individuals (not forming part of the case diary), which essentially attacked the character and dignity of the victim.

Stressing that it is not expected from a member of the Bar to place reliance on such material, the bench remarked thus:

"Any attempt to portray a woman as being of "easy virtue" or to cast aspersions on her moral character is wholly irrelevant and is expressly barred under Section 53A and the proviso to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These allegations amount to character assassination".

The Court added that such allegations violate the woman's right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

"It is well settled that a woman's past conduct or character cannot be used to discredit her or defeat her legal rights. The impugned statements therefore deserve to be expunged and ignored for all purposes", the bench further remarked.

The Court also rejected the plea of alibi, noting that it was unsupported by any evidence collected during the investigation.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the statement of the victim had remained consistent from the very inception and her allegations stood duly corroborated by her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

It also opined that the delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be evaluated at the stage of taking cognisance and it is a matter to be examined during trial

Thus, the single judge concluded that there was nothing on record at this stage to discredit or disbelieve her version and hence, the appeal was dismissed.