The Delhi High Court has observed that rape is not merely a physical violation, but can also amount to a violation of the victim's "soul", as the trauma transcends physical boundaries and enters the psychological and mental realm.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made the observation while dealing with the State's appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of raping a woman in 2006.

The Court noted that rape survivors may face social stigma and ostracisation, with society sometimes blaming the victim instead of extending sympathy, support and empathy.

"The social stigma and ostracization is such in some of the societies and regions that the victim is unfortunately blamed for what she has undergone," the Court observed.

It further remarked that when family, medical, psychological and social support is unavailable, the victim's life can virtually become a "living hell". The Court noted that, at times, a victim may find it easier to end her own life rather than seek legal recourse.

In the case before the Court, the young woman had allegedly been raped by her neighbour while she was alone in her jhuggi. She subsequently informed her brother and the matter was reported to the police. However, about three months after the incident and before she could depose in court, the victim died by suicide.

The Court noted that a suicide note left by the victim indicated that she had taken the drastic step out of shame following the incident.

The State had challenged the trial court's decision acquitting the accused, arguing that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, her statement forming the basis of the FIR, the medical evidence and the suicide note ought to have been considered together.

The Court however noted that there was no direct evidence on record since the victim had died before she could depose. It held that a statement under Section 164 of CrPC has a limited role of contradiction or corroboration and cannot substitute substantive evidence.

The Court observed that the material on record indicated a "very strong possibility" that the victim had been raped. However, it stressed that "a possibility, howsoever strong it may be, cannot be substituted for evidence."

It also noted that the medical examination had recorded injury marks and a torn hymen, which could have corroborated the victim's substantive deposition had she been able to testify and face cross-examination.

As such, the Court held that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused and dismissed the State's appeal.

Appearance: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Aarti, PS Model Town for appellant; Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Advocates with Respondent-in-person.