COIMBATORE: Despite the absence of medical evidence and an inordinate delay in lodging complaints, the 18 tribal women of Vachathi who were raped by forest and police personnel in June 1992 won justice because of their “cogent” narration of their sufferings in the court. The accused had sought to escape conviction by citing legal loopholes such as the fact that the victims were not subjected to any medical examination and that there were no bodily injuries on them.However, the Dharmapuri Principal Sessions Judge S Kumaraguru pored through law journals to cite various case precedents in handing down punishment to the guilty when he convicted 17 persons on charges of rape last month.In his judgment, running to 309 pages, a copy of which was obtained by Express, Kumaraguru held that it was proved that the women were subjected to sexual harassment “against will” and “without consent.” Therefore, “this court’s opinion is that merely non-appearance of injuries is not fatal to the prosecution case.” The counsel for one of the accused had argued that since the alleged place (river bed) where the rapes were committed had a rough surface, the victims must at least have suffered abrasions. But there was no evidence of any such injury to the victims. Also a rape victim who had deposed that an accused had torn her blouse was unable to produce the torn cloth.Rejecting the argument, the judge pointed out that immediately after the women were raped the uniformed men had not allowed them to speak to any of their relatives and also intimidated them. But when they were in jail (after forest personnel accused them of abetting sandalwood smugglers and attacking government servants), the victims had narrated their travails to the Jail Superintendent. “The explanation is accepted by this court. Oral testimony is sufficient to convict the accused. Further this court’s opinion is that since the prosecutrix’ evidence is cogent, trustworthy, (there is) no necessity for corroborative evidence. A corroboration is not necessary in a sexual offence. When a victim is very constant and definite regarding the occurrence, it is sufficient to come to the conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused,” Kumaraguru, who is also Special Judge of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dharmapuri, held. Holding that a doctor’s certificate was not necessary to prove the rape, he said “it is settled law (that) even if the doctor who examined the prosecutrix does not find (any) sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.” (With inputs from M Sankararamanujam)
Comments
0 comment