Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on January 16) reiterated that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries., the Court said. Elaborating, the Court explained that victims react to trauma in different ways and it is not just to expect a uniform reaction."We must caution that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and neither it is important to raise a hue or cry." “Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others.”The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti were deciding an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (induces any minor girl to go from any place with the intent of illicit intercourse). The conviction was affirmed by the High Court.At the outset, the Apex Court pointed out that the victim's testimony indicated that she voluntarily went with the appellant. Further, though her younger sister saw the victim going with the appellant near her school, unnaturally, she was never presented as a witness in the case.Moving forward, the Court took into account the doctor's evidence. The doctor had observed no sign of injury on her person. At this point, the Court cautioned that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and made the above-mentioned observations.To support this, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's Handbook on Gender stereotypes (2023), wherein the following was observed:“Different people react differently to traumatic events. For example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman's reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no “correct” or “appropriate” way in which a survivor or victim behaves.”Based on these observations, the Court said that section 366-A is not made out since the victim was not forcibly taken away. As far as the offence of kidnapping is concerned, the Court opined that the victim's evidence does not support the case of prosecution.On the above counts, the Court concluded that sustaining the appellant's conviction would not be justified based on the given evidence. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.“We are therefore of the view that to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced, would not at all be justified. The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of both Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and quashed. The appellant stands discharged of the bail bond furnished by him. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”Appearances:Appellant: Mr. Avneesh Garg, Adv. Mr. Anshul Singh, Adv. Ms. Iptisha, Adv. Mr. Harsh Pal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AORRespondent: Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AORCase name: DALIP KUMAR @ DALLI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND., Criminal Appeal No(s). 1005/2013Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 81Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers