The Delhi High Court recently held that merely because a woman knew the accused or had a cordial relationship with him, she cannot be held responsible for the sexual assault alleged to have been committed against her. In a decision by Justice Amit Mahajan, the Court observed that the trial court had committed an error by casting adverse remarks about the victim’s character and conduct at the stage of bail, thereby trivialising her trauma.
In the case, a woman—an independent journalist and scholar—challenged certain observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge in a bail order allowing the accused bail in a rape case. The trial court had noted that the complainant was “an educated girl… aware of the consequences of her act” and alighted upon the fact that she had voluntarily stayed in the accused’s room, suggesting that this implied consent. The High Court found these remarks unacceptable. The bench held that the fact of her voluntary presence did not give the accused a right to commit sexual assault and that questioning her character or choosing to stay in someone’s room amounts to victim-blaming.
Justice Mahajan emphasised that the truth of the allegations—and the credibility of the victim and accused—are matters for trial and cannot be assessed or diminished in bail proceedings by impugning the victim’s conduct. The Court held that the trauma of the complainant should not be undermined by insinuations of moral failing or responsibility. It held that remarks imputing character-defects to the victim were not warranted and must be expunged from the record.
While the High Court did not revoke bail granted to the accused, it remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the trial court, directing that no further adverse comments regarding the complainant’s character be made. The judgment underscores that familiarity, friendship or prior acquaintance between complainant and accused cannot automatically be interpreted as consent or mitigate the seriousness of the allegation.
In summary, this ruling reinforces the principle that victims of sexual offences are entitled to dignity and fairness in legal proceedings. The Court made clear that characterisation of the victim’s conduct must not overshadow the central issue of the alleged offence, and that courts must refrain from employing character or lifestyle as a tool to discount or undermine claims of assault.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.