Crucial To Recognize Emotional Toll Of Delays In Rape Trials, Victim's Appearances For Deposition Must Be Minimum: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is crucial to recognize the “emotional toll” of delays in the trial on rape victims and emphasised that their appearances in court for the purpose of deposition must be minimum.

“Recognizing the emotional toll of such delays is crucial in ensuring that survivors are treated with the sensitivity and respect they deserve throughout the legal proceedings which includes expeditious trials and minimum possible essential appearances in the Court for the purpose of deposition,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court observed that in cases involving offence of rape, any unnecessary delay in the legal process only serves to prolong the victim's suffering and obstruct the delivery of timely justice.

It added that the trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault is profound and enduring, and each moment spent waiting for justice exacerbates their pain.

“Delay in cross-examination of victims results in additional unjustified emotional strain on survivors of sexual assault. They are forced to re-live their traumatic experiences repeatedly, and are left grappling with the renewed effect of such sexual assault. This is the result of wilful delays in cross-examination by an accused,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court observed that the delay in administration of justice not only interferes with the healing process of the rape victims, but also prolongs their journey towards “closure and recovery of such traumatic experience.”

Justice Sharma made the observations while upholding a trial court order imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the accused in a rape case while rejecting his application seeking a duplicate copy of DVD containing all the recordings or conversation between him and the prosecutrix.

The court dismissed the petition moved by the accused against whom charges were framed in 2015 under Sections 328, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It was his case that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the data or recordings contained in DVD was relevant for proper adjudication of the case as it contained conversations between him and prosecutrix which showed that love affair existed between them.

He further contended that the Trial Court imposed exorbitant costs on him on the ground that unnecessary adjournments were taken by him, while it was the prosecutrix who had failed to turn up for her evidence several times.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the plea and submitted that the accused had sought unnecessary adjournments from time to time, which had substantially delayed the cross-examination of the prosecutrix.

It was also submitted that the accused had preferred a similar application before the Trial Court on various occasions and a copy of the DVC was also provided to him but he still filed the petition to further delay the trial of the case.

Upholding the trial court order, Justice Sharma said that the application for procuring the duplicate copy of the DVD was preferred by accused's counsel only after the discharge of the prosecutrix, who was cross-examined for a long period of seven years. It further noted that the trial court, time and again, dealt with accused's request of providing DVD on various dates.

“…the claim by the accused, after several years, of having lost a crucial piece of evidence i.e. the DVD containing alleged conversations between the accused and the victim – appears to be a calculated attempt to exploit the legal process, as the accused was given the same DVR on various occasions previously,” the court said.

It added that the victim should not be made to suffer due to the carelessness or manipulative tactics of the accused and it is unjust for the victim to bear the consequences of any negligence or misconduct on the part of the accused.

“It is important to recognize that the cost imposed by the learned Trial Court in the present case is not excessive, but rather it serves a purpose beyond mere financial penalty. While the amount may seem exorbitant to the accused, it is intended to send a clear message that attempts to prolong legal proceedings and trial through unnecessary delays will not be allowed,” Justice Sharma said.

The court added: “In the halls of justice, delay is the silent enemy of truth and fairness. Such deliberate attempts to prolong legal proceedings for personal advantage or strategic reasons cannot go unchecked. They not only undermine the integrity of the judicial process but also inflict additional hardship on all parties involved, particularly the victim. Therefore, the Courts impose costs as a means of discouraging such behaviour and ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and without undue delay.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Viney Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State

Title: MOHIT YADAV v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 338

Click Here To Read Order