Delay in lodging rape complaints can’t be appreciated in abstract, says Bombay high court

The court made the observation while upholding the life term handed down to a 58-year-old slum dweller from Vasai for raping his minor daughter for about a year

The aspect of delay in lodging complaint in rape cases cannot be appreciated in abstract, nor can it be considered dehors the attendant circumstances, Bombay high court observed while upholding the life term handed down to a 58-year-old slum dweller from Vasai for raping his minor daughter for about a year.

The 15-year-old girl was threatened of death and though she tried to reason with her father, he continued to exploit her. (HT file)

“In a prosecution for rape, delay in lodging the report by itself is not fatal to the prosecution,” said the bench of justice Sadhana Jadhav and justice NJ Jamadar last week, adding “nor can the delay in lodging the FIR be used as a ritualistic formula to throw the prosecution overboard.”

The bench said if an explanation for delay (in lodging FIR) is offered, the court has to examine whether it is satisfactory or not. It refused to accept the argument on behalf of the Vasai resident that the belated complaint belied the survivor’s testimony that she was sexually assaulted by her own father.

The court said in the case at hand, the girl had affirmed that she was threatened of death and though she tried to reason with her father, he continued to exploit her. “The victim was a girl of tender age,” said the bench. “Apart from the accused, there was nobody in her life to whom the victim could look up to.”

On December 20, 2016, an additional sessions judge convicted the 58-year-old and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He had then moved the hight court, challenging his conviction and the life term handed down to him.

It was also argued on his behalf that in the absence of corroboration to the testimony of the survivor, the conviction was legally unsustainable. In this regard, it was argued that the prosecution could have examined some immediate neighbours, who would have had the opportunity to notice the ordeal allegedly faced by the survivor for almost a year, or the women who accompanied her to the police station for lodging complaint.

The court refused to accept the contention, observing that where testimony of the victim inspires confidence, that, by itself, can be the sole basis for convicting the accused.

“The failure of the prosecution to examine immediate neighbours is of little significance,” said the bench. “The victim has deposed to her helpless condition and the methods adopted by the accused to prevent her from raising alarms. To her misfortune, her prime protector preyed on her as sexual predator. The neighbours would hardly suspect that the accused would ravish the victim in the manner deposed to by the victim.”

The high court also ruled out the possibility that the 58-year-old could have been falsely implicated at the behest of a slum lord -- one of the women who accompanied the minor to police station for lodging the complaint -- in order to grab his shanty.

“The tussle over occupancy rights of a room in a slum area, in a metropolis like Mumbai, is not uncommon,” the bench said. “It does not, however, appeal to human credulity that the victim would depose against her father at the instance of third person, who was bent on grabbing her house.”