Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man for a 2017 rape case, asserting that survivors of sexual assault cannot be expected to travel alone at night to lodge a police complaint. The court emphasized the need to consider the trauma and circumstances of the survivor when evaluating delays in filing an FIR.
The case dates back to March 25, 2017, when the convict, identified as Balya Lokhande, forcibly entered the home of a 35-year-old woman in Morshi, a village in Amravati district, and sexually assaulted her. The survivor, who lived alone, contacted a friend for help but waited until the following morning to file a complaint at the Shirkhed police station, situated 15 kilometres away.
Gold Rate
Tuesday 28 Jan. 2025
In 2018, the Amravati Sessions Court convicted Lokhande under Sections 376(1) (rape) and 452 (house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹10,000. Lokhande appealed the conviction in the High Court, arguing that the delay in filing the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Justice Govinda Sanap, presiding over the appeal, rejected Lokhande’s contention, noting that the delay must be viewed in the context of the survivor’s psychological and physical state after the assault. The court observed:
“One can visualise the pain, agony, and trauma suffered by the survivor. She must have been in a state of shock following the outrageous act committed by the petitioner, a person known to her. The delay in lodging the FIR does not detract from the credibility of the survivor’s testimony.”
The High Court highlighted the societal stigma and challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault in reporting such incidents. Justice Sanap pointed out that no woman would make such a grave and humiliating accusation unless it were true. The court praised the survivor’s testimony, calling it consistent, reliable, and credible, leaving no room for doubt.
Medical evidence supports conviction
The petitioner also argued that the absence of external injuries on the survivor weakened the prosecution’s case. However, the court noted that the medical examination revealed a torn hymen, corroborating the survivor’s account. Justice Sanap emphasized that the absence of injuries does not undermine the case, particularly when the survivor’s testimony and other evidence are strong.
The court further observed that the trial judge had meticulously analyzed the survivor’s testimony, medical reports, and witness statements before arriving at the conviction.
Significance of the judgment
This judgment underscores the importance of a survivor’s testimony in sexual assault cases and the need to approach delays in filing complaints with sensitivity. The court acknowledged the practical challenges faced by survivors, particularly those from rural areas, in seeking justice immediately after such incidents.
By dismissing the convict’s appeal, the High Court reaffirmed the principles of fairness and compassion in handling cases of sexual violence.
