Supreme Court upholds man's conviction for raping minor girl in 1986

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a man's conviction by the trial court for raping a minor girl in 1986 and lamented the nearly four-decade long wait of the survivor and her family members for the closure to a "horrific chapter" of their lives.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol allowed the appeal filed by the state of Rajasthan and set aside the state high court's July 2013 verdict acquitting the man.

"It is a matter of great sadness that this minor girl and her family have to go through nearly four decades of life, waiting to close this horrific chapter of her/their lives," the bench said in its verdict.

The apex court expressed surprise over the manner in which the high court dealt with the matter and frowned upon the survivor being named in its verdict throughout.

A trial court in November 1987 convicted and sentenced the then 21-year-old man to seven years' jail.

The bench noted the mainstay of reasoning of the high court acquittal were the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the minor survivor.

"The child witness (victim), it is true, has not deposed anything about the commission of the offence against her. When asked about the incident, the trial judge records that 'V' (victim) was silent, and upon being further asked, only shed silent tears and nothing more," the bench said.

The top court went on, "This, in our view, cannot be used as a factor in favour of the respondent (accused). The tears of 'V', have to be understood for what they are worth. This silence cannot accrue to the benefit of the respondent." The bench said the silence was that of a child and it couldn't be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult survivor, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances.

The trauma, the court said, had engulfed the survivor in silence and it would be unfair to burden her young shoulders with the weight of the entire prosecution.

"A child traumatised at a tender age by this ghastly imposition upon her has to be relieved of being the basis on which her offender can be put behind bars," the bench said.

The bench said there was no hard and fast rule that in the absence of such a statement, a conviction couldn't stand, particularly when other evidence--medical and circumstantial--was available pointing to such a conclusion.

Referring to its verdicts on child survivors of sexual assault, the bench said the first appellate court, the high court was expected to independently assess the evidence before confirming or disturbing the findings of the court below.

The accused was, therefore, ordered to surrender before the competent authority within four weeks to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court, if not already served.