<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said it is not important for a victim to have suffered bodily injuries or have raised a hue or cry to prove sexual assault.</p><p>"It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction in such cases" a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said.</p><p>The court pointed out it is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries.</p><p>"The victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others," the court said.</p><p>The bench cited the Supreme Court’s Handbook on gender stereotypes (2023) that stated that different people react differently to traumatic events. </p>.Unless arbitrary, shifting prisoner from one jail to another can't be interfered with: Supreme Court.<p>The handbook gave an example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman’s reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no “correct” or “appropriate” way in which a survivor or victim behaves.</p><p>The court allowed a plea by Dalip Kumar alias Dalli against Uttarakhand High Court's order, which upheld his conviction for kidnapping a minor girl for the purpose of marriage in an FIR lodged in 1998. The appellant was, however, acquitted of rape charges.</p><p>Going through the evidence, the bench said the doctor, who examined the victim, soon after the alleged incident, found no sign of injury on her person. She was overall normal and no injury or swelling was found in her person. </p><p>"Sexual assault on the prosecutrix was completely ruled out by the doctor, who also opined that the age of the prosecutrix will be in the range of 16-18 years," the bench said.</p><p>Besides, the court noted the girl herself stated she voluntarily went with the accused and she never shouted or demonstrated that she was being abducted by the appellant, as talks of her marriage with the appellant was going on but her father was opposed to it as both of them belonged to different castes.</p><p>The court said the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offences as victim's minor sister, who allegedly witnessed the incident was never examined and the FIR in the case was lodged a day after. The bench also noted the possibility of the victim being of 18 years of age can't be ruled out in view of the doctor's deposition.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said it is not important for a victim to have suffered bodily injuries or have raised a hue or cry to prove sexual assault.</p><p>"It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction in such cases" a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti said.</p><p>The court pointed out it is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries.</p><p>"The victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others," the court said.</p><p>The bench cited the Supreme Court’s Handbook on gender stereotypes (2023) that stated that different people react differently to traumatic events. </p>.Unless arbitrary, shifting prisoner from one jail to another can't be interfered with: Supreme Court.<p>The handbook gave an example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman’s reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no “correct” or “appropriate” way in which a survivor or victim behaves.</p><p>The court allowed a plea by Dalip Kumar alias Dalli against Uttarakhand High Court's order, which upheld his conviction for kidnapping a minor girl for the purpose of marriage in an FIR lodged in 1998. The appellant was, however, acquitted of rape charges.</p><p>Going through the evidence, the bench said the doctor, who examined the victim, soon after the alleged incident, found no sign of injury on her person. She was overall normal and no injury or swelling was found in her person. </p><p>"Sexual assault on the prosecutrix was completely ruled out by the doctor, who also opined that the age of the prosecutrix will be in the range of 16-18 years," the bench said.</p><p>Besides, the court noted the girl herself stated she voluntarily went with the accused and she never shouted or demonstrated that she was being abducted by the appellant, as talks of her marriage with the appellant was going on but her father was opposed to it as both of them belonged to different castes.</p><p>The court said the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offences as victim's minor sister, who allegedly witnessed the incident was never examined and the FIR in the case was lodged a day after. The bench also noted the possibility of the victim being of 18 years of age can't be ruled out in view of the doctor's deposition.</p>
