Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling on January 16, 2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that the absence of bodily injuries does not negate claims of sexual assault. Addressing common misconceptions surrounding such cases, the Court emphasized that survivors’ reactions to trauma vary, influenced by individual circumstances and societal stigma.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma, or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others.”

The judgment arose from an appeal challenging the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor for illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code. Both the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court had convicted the appellant based on the prosecution's evidence, which the Supreme Court ultimately found insufficient to sustain the charges.

Case Background

The case stemmed from an FIR filed in 1998, alleging that the appellant had abducted a minor girl. The prosecution relied on testimony from the complainant (the victim’s father), the victim herself, and the doctor who examined her. However, the victim's testimony indicated that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant. Despite her younger sister witnessing the two leaving together, the sister was never presented as a witness, and the delay in filing the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case.

Observations on Trauma and Sexual Assault

The Court highlighted that while no injuries were observed on the victim during medical examination, this did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. Referring to the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), the bench noted, “There is no ‘correct’ or ‘appropriate’ way in which a survivor or victim behaves after a traumatic event. Individual reactions to such incidents depend on various factors, including fear and societal pressures.”

Analysis of Evidence

• The doctor’s report indicated no injuries or signs of sexual assault, and the victim appeared to be within the age range of 16-18 years. In the absence of evidence conclusively establishing her minority, the Court leaned toward the upper limit of this range.

• The Court criticized the prosecution’s failure to call the victim’s sister, a key witness, and noted inconsistencies in the testimony of another witness who did not support the prosecution’s case.

• The victim explicitly stated that she was not forcibly taken by the appellant, further undermining the charges under Section 366-A.

Court's Decision

Setting aside the appellant’s conviction, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of both Sections 363 and 366-A. The bench observed, “Sustaining the appellant’s conviction based on the evidence adduced would not be justified. The prosecution's failure to establish essential elements of the charges leaves no basis for upholding the conviction.” The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged.

Cause Title: DALIP KUMAR @ DALLI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1005/2013

Date: January-16-2025

Bench:  Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

[Read/Download order]