An Acquittal With No Good, But The Bad And The Ugly

Context: With respect to the recent acquittal of Tarun Tejpal in a sexual assault case the criminal justice system (CJS) must observe the basics of a proper investigation, judicial fairness, and the survivor’s rights.

Evolving laws and legal proceedings – Towards sensitisation of CJS

• Prohibition of character assassination of victim:
  • According to the Supreme Court, the purpose of cross-examining a survivor of rape is not to humiliate her but to get to the truth of the case.
  • Based on recommendations of the 172^nd report of Law Commission of India, two changes were made in Evidence Act in 2002 ->
    • Prohibited defence counsel from asking questions to prosecutrix in a rape case about her general character to impeach her credibility.
    • Defence not permitted to put questions to a witness in cross-examination about general immoral character of prosecutrix and adduce evidence.
• Breaking stereotypes: Stereotyping excludes any individualised consideration of a person’s actual circumstances and abilities. It affects women’s right to a fair trial.
  • Dual behaviour of an individual (In public and with acquaintances) cannot be termed unnatural.
  • In Aparna Bhat and Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Case, 2021, Supreme Court specifically said that courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion.
• Handling of contradiction in details and omissions: It is quite natural for a survivor to share the incident in different words and details to different individuals.
  • Therefore, if the statement given during trial is substantially consistent with the statement given to police and judicial magistrate during investigation, the difference of details given to other individuals cannot be rejected by terming them as untrustworthy.
• Protection of identity: The Indian Penal Code was amended in 1983, and disclosure of the identity of the survivor of rape by anyone was made punishable under a newly added Section 228-A.
  • In the State of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh case, 2003, Supreme Court held that the name of the victim should not be mentioned in judgments and she should be described as ‘victim’ in the judgment.

Conclusion: Despite the changes being made in law, lapses in investigation, ignorance of technical knowledge and lack of proper sensitisation among stakeholders in CJS eludes justice, especially with regard to crime against women.