Rape An Affront To Womanhood, 'Brutally Infringes' Right To Life: Chhattisgarh High Court

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas observed, "Rape is one of the gravest and most heinous offences against a woman. It is an affront to womanhood itself, striking at the core of her dignity, modesty, and honour. The offence inflicts deep and lasting trauma, shattering her sense of self, autonomy, and confidence. It is not merely a crime against an individual, but an offence against society at large. Such an act amounts to a brutal invasion of the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, namely, the right to life with dignity, bodily privacy, and personal liberty.”

Background

The observations were propounded in an appeal filed by the appellant (rape-convict) against a conviction handed down by the Sessions Judge, whereby he was convicted under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 376 (rape) of IPC.

As per the prosecution, the victim's husband had gone out for work and did not return home on the night of the incident. While the victim went searching for him, the appellant allegedly intercepted her, and threatened her with an axe and forcibly took her to his father's house, where he raped her thrice. Upon the victim's husband's arrival later, the appellant fled.

In his challenge against the conviction, the appellant contended that the victim was a consenting party and there was no record demonstrating that she raised alarm or resisted. He submitted that he and the victim were having an illicit relationship and upon being seen by her husband, she concocted a story. He further submitted that the private parts of the victim were not injured which rules out allegation of rape.

Justifying the conviction, the State argued that the victim, in her examination-in-chief, categorically narrated the incident, which was not rebutted in cross-examination, and that the offence was further corroborated by the FSL report. Further, it also submitted that the accused was accorded sufficient opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence against him.

At the outset, the Court reiterated two principles— (I) that consent obtained out of fear or misconception is not valid consent; and (II) that conviction can be recorded on the basis of sole testimony of the victim, provided such testimony inspires confidence.

Taking note of multiple testimonies and statements of witnesses, the Single Judge observed that, “… evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the victim's statement which inspires confidence in the case of the prosecution as she has narrated the facts how she was subjected to commission of offence of rape on the strength of axe which was seized by the prosecution having wooden shaft of 31 inch and cutting edge 3 inch which seems sufficient to inflict fatal injury and the seizure of the four broken parts glass bangles coupled with injuries at right knee, back of leg and right elbow in the medical report clearly demonstrate that it was not the case of free consent, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel that the victim was consenting party deserves to be rejected.”

Finding no fault or irregularity in the Trial Court's order, the Court thus upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRA No. 18 of 2005

Case Title: Mahaveer Chaik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order