Yesterday, On 5th November, The Supreme Court questioned how a rape case was settled without determining whether the illiterate victim fully understood the settlement. The Court subsequently quashed the settlement and sent the case back to the Gujarat High Court for further proceedings. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that victims, especially those with limited literacy, comprehend legal agreements.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court set aside a Gujarat High Court decision that allowed the quashing of a rape case based on an ‘amicable settlement’ between the parties .
A Bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih remanded the case to the High Court, pointing out that there was no evidence to confirm that the rape survivor was informed about the settlement’s contents.
Read Also: Parents Cannot Defame Daughter’s Chastity in Rape Case: Patna HC
Justice Oka questioned,
“What is this? How can the High Court allow this without even calling the victim? Nowhere is it stated that the lady was told about the contents. The lady is illiterate, and it’s not mentioned that the contents were explained to her. Someone needs to do that. The lady puts her thumb impression, and there must be an endorsement by someone else confirming she was made aware of the contents.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s ruling cannot stand without such verification.
The Supreme Court also noted that in such cases, the appropriate course of action would be to have a third party provide an affidavit confirming that the settlement was properly explained to the survivor.
The Court stated,
“Typically, when an illiterate person provides a thumb impression, a third-party endorsement is necessary to affirm that the contents of the affidavit were explained to the victim. The High Court should have directed the victim to be present in person to verify whether she was informed about the contents of the affidavit,”
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to have the settlement verified accordingly and then reconsider whether the rape case should be quashed.
The top court ruled,
“As the High Court passed the impugned judgment without verifying the settlement, it cannot be sustained. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the High Court with a direction for the appellant-victim to appear before the court. We set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter,”
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a September 2023 ruling by the Gujarat High Court, where Justice Samir J. Dave had noted an affidavit from the rape survivor, stating that the dispute was “amicably resolved.” Based on this, the High Court had deemed it unnecessary to continue the criminal trial and quashed the case.
During yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the appellant, emphasized that the affidavit suggesting a settlement was written in Gujarati, a language the rape survivor did not understand. She pointed out that the survivor, an illiterate adivasi woman, never consented to the so-called “amicable settlement.”
Jaising argued,
“How can the High Court endorse this? And will this court endorse such a practice in Gujarat? I want to know who her lawyer is. Please call for the records. This affidavit was never even read to her,”
Another counsel suggested that an inquiry could help resolve doubts about the authenticity of the settlement.
The counsel stated,
“I asked the lady’s advocate whether she had signed it, and I was told she did so with the notary. An inquiry is necessary here to determine whether she went to the notary’s office and who her lawyer was,”
The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court could conduct an inquiry into the settlement.
Read Also: Bombay HC Drops Rape Case Against Married Man
The Court stated in its order,
“The High Court would be well within its powers to order an inquiry into how the affidavit was executed and how the appellant’s thumb impression was taken without explaining the contents of the affidavit to her… The High Court is fully within its authority to order an inquiry by a judicial officer, if necessary,”
Senior Advocate Jaising appeared with Advocate Paras Nath Singh for the appellant, the first informant/complainant. Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna with Advocate Savita Singh represented the accused, while Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli with Advocate Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the State of Gujarat.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
