SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 820

2004(5) Supreme 68
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Rajendra Babu, CJI & G.P. Mathur, J.
Sakshi -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 33 of 1997
Decided on 26-5-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.N. Trivedi, Additional Soliciter General, F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate (AC) (NP), Ms. Naina Kapoor, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Hona Chettri, Tara Chandra Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Sujit Kumar Bhattarcharya, Goodwill Indeevar, Ms. Shashi Kiran, Ms. Anil Katiyar D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, G.G. Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay, Advocates.­

Important point
The cases of child abuse and rape are increasing at alarming speed and appropriate legislation in this regard is, therefore, urgently required.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 375, 376 and 376-A to 376D-Constitution of India-Article 32-Public Interest Litigation regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment, violence on women and child sexual abuse-Prayer for giving wider definition to ‘rape’ by judicial interpretation-Suggestions made for incorporating special provisions in child sexual abuse cases-Need for providing protection to a victim of sexual abuse at the time of recording his statement in Court-Writ petition disposed of with directions made by the Court.

       Held : There is absolutely no doubt or confusion regarding the interpretation of provisions of Section 375 IPC and the law is very well settled. The inquiry before the Courts relate only to the factual aspect of the matter which depends upon the evidence available on the record and not on the legal aspect. Accepting the contention of the writ petitioner and giving a wider meaning to Section 375 IPC will lead to a serious confusion in the minds of prosecuting agency and the Courts which instead of achieving the object of expeditiously bringing a criminal to book may unnecessarily prolong the legal proceedings and would have an adverse impact on the society as a whole. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it will not be in the larger interest of the State or the people to alter the definition of “rape” as contained in Section 375 IPC by a process of judicial interpretation as is sought to be done by means of the present writ petition. (Para 26)

       The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

       (1) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 327 Cr.P.C. shall, in addition to the offences mentioned in the sub-section, would also apply in inquiry or trial of offences under sections 354 and 377 IPC.

       (2) In holding trial of child sex abuse or rape:

        (i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused;

        (ii) the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of the accused, in so far as they relate directly to the incident, should be given in writing to the Presiding Officer of the Court who may put them to the victim or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not embarrassing;

        (iii) the victim of child abuse or rape, while giving testimony in court, should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required. These directions are in addition to those given in State of ­Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.

       The suggestions made by the petitioners will advance the cause of justice and are in the larger interest of society. The cases of child abuse and rape are increasing at alarming speed and appropriate legislation in this regard is, therefore, urgently required. We hope and trust that the Parliament will give serious attention to the points highlighted by the petitioner and make appropriate legislation with all the promptness which it deserves. (Paras 34 and 35)

       

Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.-This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by way of public interest litigation, by Sakshi, which is an organisation to provide legal, medical, residential, psychological or any other help, assistance or charitable support for women, in particular those who are victims of any kind of sexual abuse and/or harassment, violence or any kind of atrocity or violation and is a violence intervention centre. The respondents arrayed in the writ petition are (1) Union of India; (2) Ministry of Law and Justice; and (3) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. The main reliefs claimed in the writ petition are as under: ­

(A) Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring inter alia that “sexual intercourse” as contained in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code shall include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration and object/vaginal penetration;

(B) Consequently, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a direction to the respondents and its servants and agents to register all such cases found to be truly on investigation, offences falling within the broadened interpretation of “sexual intercourse” set out in prayer (A) aforesaid as offences under Section 375, 376 and 376A to 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

(C) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in the present facts and circumstances.

The petition is thus restricted to a declaratory­ relief and consequential directions.

2. It is set out in the writ petition that the petitioner has noticed with growing concern the dramatic increase of violence, in particular sexual violence against women and children as well as the implementation of the provisions of Indian Penal Code namely Sections 377, 375/376 and 354 by the respondent authorities. The existing trend of the respondent authorities has been to treat sexual violence, other than penile/vaginal penetration, as lesser offences falling under either Section 377 or 354 of the IPC and not as a sexual offence under Section 375/376 IPC. It has been found that offences such as sexual abuse of minor children and women by penetration other than penile/vaginal penetration, which would take any other form and could also be through use of objects whose impact on the victims is in no manner less than the trauma of penile/vaginal penetration as traditionally understood under Section 375/376, have been treated as offences falling under Section 354 of the IPC as outraging the modesty of a women or under Section 377 IPC as unnatural offenses.

3. The petitioner through the present petition contends that the narrow understanding and application of rape under Section 375/376 IPC only to the cases of penile/vaginal penetration runs contrary to the existing contemporary understanding of rape as an intent to humiliate, violate and degrade a woman or child sexually and, therefore, adversely affects the sexual integrity and autonomy of women and children in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

4. The petitioner submits that a plain reading of Section 375 would make it apparent that the term “sexual intercourse” has not been defined and is, therefore, subject to and is capable of judicial interpretation. Further the explanation to Section 375 IPC does not in any way limit the term penetration to mean penile/vaginal penetration. The definition of the term rape as contained in the Code is extremely wide and takes within its sweep various forms of sexual offenses. Limiting the understanding of “rape” to abuse by penile/vaginal penetration only, runs contrary to the contemporary understanding of sexual abuse law and denies majority of women and children access to adequate redress in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Statistics and figures indicate t










































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top