Rape Survivor's Testimony Not To Be Discredited For Delayed Disclosure If Otherwise Reliable: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the evidence provided by a prosecutrix under Section 376 IPC should not be discredited merely because the sexual abuse began when she was a child but she did not disclose it until she was much older. 

A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh and Justice C.S Sudha added that the credibility of the prosecutrix evidence in such cases would differ from case to case.

"A child who was subjected to sexual assault by her father, not disclosing the same to anyone during her childhood, is no reason to think that what is spoken to by her at a matured age is false. The question whether the evidence tendered by such a person is reliable, is to be decided having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case."

The appellant was accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a minor. The survivor's testimony was the primary evidence presented by the prosecution, and she testified that the accused abused her since her childhood, with the last occurrence on 30.08.2013. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. 

The appellant moved the High Court challenging this conviction and sentence.

Advocate V.K Hema appearing for the appellant argued that the survivor was 25 years old when she gave evidence so her evidence has to be scrutinised with caution as she had not complained about the alleged sexual assaults till she was 19 years. It was contended that her delayed disclosure and the absence of certain witnesses cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. They also questioned the possibility of sexual assaults occurring in a doorless room and challenged the forensic evidence.

Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi S submitted that the survivor did not disclose the incidents to her mother for so long since the accused had threatened to kill her.

The Court noted that the prosecution only had the evidence of the victim to prove the accusation of sexual assaults committed on her. Recalling that conviction can be found on the prosecutrix's testimony alone under Section 376 IPC, it considered the victim a "sterling witness" whose testimony was unassailable. 

In Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21), it was held that the version of such witnesses on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary, and material objects should match the said version in material particulars. 

The Bench thus went through the evidence, including the statements of an Anganwadi teacher to whom the survivor had disclosed her ordeal and the doctor who examined her. It was found that the evidence tendered by the prosecutrix was natural and consistent with the prosecution case and that the core of the crime remained intact throughout the cross-examination, leaving no room for doubt. 

Although she did not disclose it earlier due to threats from the accused, the Court found her testimony to be natural and reliable, dismissing doubts about its genuineness. 

"We have come to the said conclusion also for the reason that the only suggestion put to the victim by the counsel for the accused was that she deposed against the accused for having scolded her for showing reluctance to go to school. According to us, no daughter would depose against her own father in a manner in which the victim in the case on hand has deposed, for such a flimsy reason." 

The delay in filing the First Information Report was also found to be adequately explained. The absence of specific witnesses and the forensic report's limitations did not undermine the strength of the prosecution case either. Therefore, it was held that the trial court was right in convicting the accused.

Regarding the sentence imposed on him, the Court held that the sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) should be modified. Considering the social background and gravity of the crime, the Bench reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

Accordingly, the conviction was upheld but a modified sentence was imposed on the accused. As such, the plea was partly allowed. 

Case Title: Raju v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 360

Click Here To Read/Download The Order