Madras High Court judge rules rape is invasion of Right to Life'

Chennai: A sexual assault or offence, which is a traumatic experience for a woman, is also an invasion of the ‘Right of Privacy’ of a woman. It undoubtedly affects her dignity and self-esteem. In the offence of ‘rape’, when a woman is ravished, a ‘deathless shame’ would haunt her during her lifespan, said the Madras high court.

“The  offence of ‘rape’ is violation of a victim’s cherished fundamental rights and in reality, “Right to Life” is mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is by now well settled that non-examination of a doctor or non-production of a medical report would not be fatal in a given prosecution case, if the evidence of the prosecutrix/ victim and other witnesses is quite worthy of credence, and inspires subjective confidence of a court of law”, said Justice M. Venugopal while upholding an order of a lower court, which convicted an accused on charges of rape.

The prosecution case was that the accused was in acquaintance with the 19-year-old victim for over two years and on December 14, 2012, he invited her over the phone to a bush situated at Arakonam taluk in Vellore district where he abducted her while also assuring her on a false promise that he would marry her. Although she had refused, the accused enticed her to have sexual intercourse and ravished her. He had also threatened her not to reveal the same to anyone.

The Mahila Court in Vellore district convicted and sentenced him to undergo 7-years RI. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present appeal.

The judge said the unimpeachable evidence of the victim girl was that she had refused to have sexual intercourse prior to her marriage with the accused but, despite her refusal, it appears the accused had ravished her. The court came to an inevitable conclusion that the offence under section 376 (1) of IPC was made out against the accused by the prosecution.

"The defence taken on behalf of the accused before the trial court that he was in no way connected with any of the offences, as claimed by the victim girl cannot be accepted by this court because of the simple reason that the evidence of the victim girl was cogent, coherent and convincing one and the same is accepted by this court", the judge added.

Partly allowing the appeal, the judge however, keeping in mind of a prime fact that both the accused and the victim had got married subsequently and they were living separately with their own families and also, bearing in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, exercising his judicial discretion, modified the sentence of 7 years and reduced the same to that of 5 years.