The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that bodily injuries are not a prerequisite to establish sexual assault. Addressing a common misconception, the Court emphasized that victims of sexual assault respond to trauma differently, and expecting uniform reactions is neither realistic nor just.
A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti made these observations while ruling on an appeal against a conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision.
In its judgment, the Court highlighted that the victim’s testimony indicated her voluntary involvement with the appellant. Notably, while the victim’s younger sister had reportedly witnessed her leaving with the appellant near their school, she was not called as a witness.
Addressing the lack of physical injuries reported by the doctor who examined the victim, the Court stated that the absence of bodily harm does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault. Referencing the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), the Bench reiterated:
“Victims respond to trauma in different ways, influenced by fear, shock, social stigma, or helplessness. The stigma surrounding sexual assault often creates significant barriers for victims, making it difficult for them to come forward. There is no ‘correct’ way for a survivor to behave after such an incident.”
Based on these principles, the Court ruled that the evidence did not support the charges under Sections 363 and 366-A. It observed that the victim was not forcibly taken away, and her testimony did not align with the prosecution’s claims.
The Supreme Court concluded that sustaining the conviction would be unjustified and quashed the earlier judgment. The appellant was discharged, and the appeal was allowed.
This judgment underscores the importance of understanding trauma and dispelling myths surrounding sexual assault cases, particularly the misconception that physical injuries or stereotypical responses are necessary to validate a victim’s testimony.
