Citation: (2005) 3 SCC594 #
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Kapadia conclusively rebutted deeply misogynistic arguments about ‘easy virtue’ and ‘character’ of the prosecutrix. The defence claimed that she was not of a ‘good character’ and of ‘easy virtue’ because, they claimed, she was ‘habituated to sexual intercourse’ and there was no sign of injury on her body. While the trial court had also found that the claim about ‘easy morals’ was of no consequence, the High Court had accepted the horrendous argument and ordered the acquittal. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that even assuming the victim had been previously accustomed to sexual intercourse, that that was not a determinative question. The Court stressed that there was no rule of law that that her testimony could not be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. It repeated that the testimony of a rape victim was to be placed at a higher pedestal than that of an injured witness, and if for any reason a Court found it difficult to accept the version of the prsoecutrix at face value, it could look for assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice.The Court also reiterated that the High Court’s view that the girl being of ‘loose morals’ and ‘easy virtue’ earned an acquittal was indefensible and that the character of the girl has no bearing on the determination of whether there was ‘rape’ or not. (Para 11)
