Jammu and Kashmir High Court Expresses Concern Over Rising Crimes Against Women and Children
In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of raping his one-year-old granddaughter. The court expressed deep concern over the fact that even after more than a decade since the notorious Nirbhaya case, there has been minimal progress in curbing the rising crimes against women and children.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri, emphasized the fundamental rights of women, stating,
“Nothing has improved even after more than a decade of “Nirbhaya”. Women also have the right to life and liberty. They also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. Women, in them, have many personalities combined. They are not playthings. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is a blot on the society and a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. Therefore, courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.”
The case in question centered on the heinous rape of a minor child by her maternal grandfather. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989. The appellant challenged his conviction, raising concerns about the evidence against him and alleging discrepancies in the trial court’s evaluation.
The defense argued that the evidence was inconsistent and that there was no clear motive behind the crime. They also highlighted that many key witnesses were closely related to the victim, suggesting potential bias.
However, the High Court bench systematically addressed each argument. They underscored the importance of the victim’s testimony and the medical evidence, noting,
“The sole testimony of PW-Kajal, duly corroborated by the Medical Expert, is sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant.”
The court further elaborated on the role of medical evidence in sexual crime cases, emphasizing that a medical expert can only confirm recent sexual activity and not determine rape. The bench cited Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, stating,
“A medical expert treating a rape survivor can only certify about any evidence of recent sexual activity. It is none of his business to opine whether rape is committed or not. Rape is a judicial determination. Since rape is crime, it is only for a Court to determine whether rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC is made or not. Offence of rape can be established even without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains.”
On the matter of motive, the court ruled that while motive is crucial, its absence does not weaken the prosecution’s case when there’s direct and trustworthy evidence of the crime.
Concluding their judgment, the bench found no errors in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, deeming it without merit.
