Orissa High Court acquittal in rape case “borders on the absurd”

J. Venkatesan
Conclusion contrary to law; name of victim revealed flouting order; apex court
It’s non-application of mind: Bench

Matter remitted back for disposal afresh

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed all trial courts and High Courts not to disclose in their judgments the names of rape victims.

Revealing the names will amount to judicial indiscipline, said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma.

‘Judicial indiscipline’
Notwithstanding a series of decisions by the apex Court that the name of a rape victim should not be indicated in the judgment, the Orissa High Court did the reverse.

“This speaks volumes of judicial indiscipline.”

The Bench faulted the High Court also for acquitting a convict on the absurd reasoning that the victim was a healthy tribal woman capable of resisting rape and that there was only one eyewitness.

Trial court order reversed
The High Court acquitted Sukru Gouda, reversing a trial court order convicting him of raping the woman on September 4, 1993.

The High Court said: “Admittedly she was an able-bodied tribal lady, capable of taking care of herself. It was natural that she would have resisted to the best of her ability if sexual intercourse was being committed on her against her consent.”

Baffling
Allowing the appeal by the State of Orissa against this judgment, the apex court said: “A bare reading of the High Court’s order shows a complete non-application of mind. Some of the conclusions are clearly contrary to the law as laid down by this court. The conclusions are not only confusing but border on the absurd. It baffles us as to why the High Court says that ‘law is well settled that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against her will’.”

‘Not fathomable’
The Bench said the basis on which High Court came to this conclusion was not fathomable.

“To say the least, the conclusion is not only contrary to law laid down by this court, but also shows scant regard for law declared by this court.”

Accused ignores notice
It remitted the matter back to the High Court to hear the appeal afresh for disposal, as the accused-respondent (Sukru Gouda) had not appeared before the court in spite of notice, keeping in view the correct legal principles. more