Critical Analysis On The Role Of Courts In Interpreting Matters Concerning Rape Charges

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Crimes are on a rise due to the prevailing conditions in the society despite the various progressive laws.
• Rape is one of such crime that affects women gravely, but has also not left innocent men from its clenches.
• While mostly Courts have stood up for women’s rights, there are some cases wherein courts have made gross mistakes by interpreting matters related to rape charges leniently.
• There are also instances wherein the Courts have also ignored to provide justice to innocent men accused of false rape charges.
• This article makes a critical analysis of the role of Courts in dealing with matters relating to Rape Charges.

INTRODUCTION

Violence against women is increasing steadily in spite of the several measures by the Central and State Governments to contain the same. The 2012 Nirbhaya Gang rape case shattered the entire country to such an extent that various campaigns and protests were carried out against such injustices. However, just how women suffer from sexual assaults, men too are falling in the trap of false rape allegations. Due to its stringent punishment, they are sometimes inescapable from the clutches of the law. The Indian Law presumes a person accused with such grave charges to be guilty until proved innocent with reasonable and substantial evidence. This is to protect women and uphold their safety, dignity, and rights. These are instances wherein women take undue advantage of their laws to harass men. If such cases are viewed only from a woman’s perspective, then that would amount to gross injustice to men. Similarly, we cannot completely be doubted about the merits of every case, then that would encourage criminals to easily victimize and escape from Law. Thus, Courts must exercise due care and caution while dealing with a cases relating to sexual harassment. Judges cannot be simply biased or prejudiced towards a party, and must analyse the matter in its depth.

SECTION 376 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

Crimes against humanity in general has multiplied due to the social and economic conditions in the country, lack of moral values and empathy towards humans. Although we see women can be victims of all crimes including murder, cheating, etc. but there are also some crimes that are specifically targeted against women. Rape is one of such grave offences that threatens women, irrespective of their age, marital status, caste, religion, race, social/economic status, etc. There are laws safeguarding women from this offence, and the principle law, in this regard, is the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860). Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines Rape in a more detailed manner. In simple terms, rape means forcible seizure, or the ravishment of women against her will. It affects a woman’s most of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Owning to the intensity of the case, the law prescribes stringent punishment for rape. Section 376 of IPC makes rape punishable with rigorous imprisonment for minimum ten years and maximum for life. The offence also attracts fine.

INSTANCES WHERE COURTS FAILED TO STAND BY WOMEN

1. State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996): In this case, it was alleged that the prosecutrix was abducted and raped by three men against her consent. However, the Additional Judge of Ludhiana acquitted all the accused. The Learned Judge did not believe the testimony of the victim and also questioned the delay in registering the FIR. However, as the relief, the Supreme Court held the accused persons guilty of rape
2. Tukaram vs. State of Maharashtra (1979), also popularly known as the Mathura case: Before going into the details of the judgement, it is important to know the facts of the case in brief. An 18-year old orphan, Mathura, was called to the police station in relation to an abduction case. There, she was kept back and was raped by Constable Ganpat, and another constable Tukaram had molested and attempted to rape her. The accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge on the ground of tacit consent. However, on appeal, the Bombay High Court overruled the Sessions Court’s verdict and held the accused guilty. It distinguished between “consent” and “helpless surrender”. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court’s order was reversed and the Sessions Judge’s order was upheld. This Judgement of the Supreme Court was criticisedwidely. It still remains as a black mark in the country’s history as the Judiciary, which is the guardian of safeguarding the rights of people, failed to exercise its duty properly. This led to the 1983 Amendment of Criminal Law Act that nullified the Supreme Court’s Verdict in this case.
3. State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa (2000): In this case, the trial court convicted the accused for 10 years of imprisonment on charges of raping a minor girl. However, citing reasons of intoxication, the High Court reduced the term to four years. The Apex Court, however, restored the Trial Court’s verdict. Such an instance also occurred in State of Karnataka vs. Puttaraja (2004).
4. State of Karnataka vs. MahabaleshwarGourya Naik (1992): In this case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the victim had committed suicide and was not available for examination. However, the Supreme Court overruled the order.

THE FAST TRACK COURTS (FTCs)

Courts are usually categorised as being slow and lazy which is preventing our legal system to effectively function. The main reason attributed to this stereotype is the delay in disposing a case. In India, there are around 4 crore pending cases. It is, therefore, important to come up with measures that could aid in disposing of cases expeditiously. Realising the same, the concept of Fast Track Courts was introduced in 2000. The aim was to reduce the number of pending cases. However, this was a State subject, and therefore, the establishment of Fast Track Courts was the sole responsibility of the States. This had led to the number of such courts varied from state to state. States received some support from the Centre between 2005 and 2011, however, the Union stopped funding in from 2011. When the matter was placed before the Supreme Court (Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, 2012), but the petition was dismissed and the Supreme Court held that the States can maintain or shut down these courts based on their economy.

The Nirbhaya Case and thereafter

The Supreme Court’s order on the functioning of the Fast Track Courts forced some States to shut down their courts after some time. In December 2012, after the rape and murder of a paramedic student, the need for such fast track courts seemed inevitable. The Delhi High Court, too, ordered the Delhi Government to set up five of such courts to quickly dispose of the pending cases of violence against women. Moreover, in 2013, the then Central Government had established a Nirbhaya Fund and also set up some fast track Mahila courts. This also encouraged more states to set up such FTCs. In 2019, the Narendra Modi-led government proposed the establishment of 1,023 more fast track courts in India. However, there has been little impact out of this scheme as the number of pending cases in India are on a steady rise with only few fast disposing instances. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the total pending cases is nearly 90% of the total registered cases, by the end of 2019. We all know that expeditious disposal of cases in a mandatory provision under the Indian Law. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees right to fair and speedy trial under to its citizens. Sluggishness in the functioning of such courts would seriously infringe of the accused’s fundamental right. Also, it is important to make such fats track courts more effective and regular. Proceedings should be completed in a time bound manner. The Central Government must oversee that states take all the necessary steps to establish fast track courts in their states. The States can also be provided with some funds depending on their financial status.

CHANGES IN SOME OF THE LAWS TO AID IN SPEEDY TRIALS

1. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This Section mandates Courts to dispose of rape cases within two months (60 days) from the date of filing of the charge. Similarly, the 2009 Amendment Act made it clear that no adjournment shall be granted for unjustified and petty reasons.
2. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code:The Criminal Law Amendment Act 2018 had inserted a new sub-section (3) to Section 376. It provides punishment for raping women under the age of sixteen years with a rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the remainder of his natural life.
3. POCSO Act: The latest amendment (2019) had considerably increased the punishment for sexual assault as well as aggravated sexual assault. It has also increased the grounds of aggravated penetrative sexual assault: i) assault that results in the death of the child, ii) assault committed during a calamity or other situation of violence.

Despite these amendments, there is little to no change in the number of rape convictions. This is mainly due to the slow proceedings. What effect it will show if the punishments have been made more stringent but the trial proceedings is lenient and slow? Almost nothing. This is the problem at present. The legal system in India should have been vigilant right after the grievous incidence of December 2012. However, the effect was only on papers and there was no proper implementation. This is evident with the continuing incidences of rape cases that includes the Shakti Mills gang rape (2013), Sivagangai Minor girl rape (2015), the Kathua Rape, the Hathras and so on. Even much recently, there was an incident wherein a woman, who was raped on pretext of marriage, was married by the rapist who later killed her within six months. This really makes the safety of women a matter of concern. It is therefore important to contain the number of pending cases by setting up Fast Track Courts effectively.

INSTANCES WHERE COURTS IGNORED INNOCENT MEN

When we talk about innocent men in rape charges, we are considering those who have been falsely accused of committing sexual harassment, and as a consequence of which they have suffered imprisonment. A 2014 report of Delhi Commission for Women stated that out of the rape cases registered in 2013 in Delhi, 53% were falsely filed. These cases are made out either to take revenge or to take advantage of the existing legal system. Even Courts have shown minimal interest in such issues. Some of the cases where the Courts failed to overlook on the matter in depth and expeditiously are listed below:

1. Vishnu Tiwari vs. State of UP (2019):Vishnu was sentenced to imprisonment in 2001 for rape and brutality under Section 376 and 506 of the IPC, and also under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He had tried to proof his innocence but the same was turned down for want of evidence. The matter was continuously stayed, and Vishnu had to spend about 20 years in jail. The Allahabad High Court acquitted Vishnu and claimed the incident to be the most unfortunate one.
2. A recent study by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), titled “Interrogating violence against women from the other side: An exploratory study into the world of perpetrators”, stated that when some of the accused in Tihar Jail were interviewed, a majority of them denied the allegations, blamed the errors in the judicial system.
3. In 2018, the Supreme Court had acquitted two men in a false rape case in Faridabad, Haryana. However, one of the accused had spent 10 years in jail while the other suffered for seven years.

CONCLUSION

When the country is still struggling to gives its woman her deserving place, a more unexpected wave of problems are hitting her. No gender is either absolutely angelic or demonic. Every one has their own way of living. Women are both victims and criminals, so are men. When it comes to rape charges, men are stereotyped of being guilty while women are always considered victims. Though it is the women who suffer the most, yet we cannot simply ignore men who become preys in the hands of some women. Let us leave aside the judgmental nature of the public, for our concern should be more on the Judicial System. It is the Courts that play a crucial role in this regard.

Each interpretation and analysis of the Judges form an important source of law. A flaw in it would mean a setback to the entire nation. Therefore, Courts must be cautiously exercising their powers, especially in cases which provides strict punishment. Recently, we have seen instances of Courts granting interim relief from arrest to persons accused of rape if they find some faults in the testimony of the complainants. Though for actual criminals, justice might be served late through this provision, yet it gives a big sigh of relief to innocent accused. Even though Courts have a primarily duty to safeguard the rights and safety of women in India, nonetheless, it is also their duty to protect innocent people from getting accused on false charges. As right said by various writers,“let thousand guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be punished”.