Burden of Proof in Rape Cases

Burden of Proof in Rape Cases | #FalseRape Accusation and Defence

A lot of people imagine and believe that in Rape cases the burden of proof is on the accused and the statement of the girl is taken as Gospel’s truth. This kind of beliefs were prevalent about 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharariya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) cases also in the past. Though both of these beliefs whether about 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharariya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) or Rape cases are unfounded and not true.

The Responsibility to prove every aspect of the crime of rape, including the lack of consent, always falls on the prosecution. The prosecution must present enough evidence to prove their case and can not rely on weaknesses in the defense’s case. Even if the court strongly suspects the accused and believes they are guilty, they can not be convicted unless the prosecution proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through legal evidence. Convicting someone based on suspicions, surmises, assumptions and conjectures is not allowed in the absence of legal evidence.

This said, in cases of rape, courts are obligated to adopt a distinct approach characterized by heightened sensitivity and a heightened sense of responsibility. This is necessary given the gravity of the offence and the potential impact on the victim. The court must be diligent in its consideration of the evidence and must avoid any actions or statements that may re-victimized the victim of rape. Time and again the courts have held that in cases of rape, courts must consider the broader context and weigh the evidence in light of the overall probability of the case. They must not be unduly influenced by minor inconsistencies or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial importance. The court must be mindful of the gravity of the offence and the potential impact on the victim and must ensure that their judgment is based on a fair and impartial evaluation of the evidence presented.

However, in cases of rape, where the accused is a person in authority, the court must adopt a nuanced approach while evaluating the evidence. The conduct and behavior of the prosecution agency must be examined in light of the power dynamic and the potential for coercion and manipulation that may exist in such cases. The court must also consider the broader socio-cultural context in which the alleged crime took place. Any shortcomings or failures on the part of investigating officer to fully investigate certain aspects of the case, should not be considered as determinative of the credibility of the prosecution’s statement. The court must exercise caution and circumspection in evaluating the evidence and must not allow any procedural lapses to detract feom the credibility of prosecutrix evidence. Though the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt must still be met by the prosecution before coming to a decision.

In a case of sectarian violence, where the defence tried to establish consent the courts termed it unacceptable when more than 3 women had alleged rape. The Supreme Court held that – Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. And in yet another case involving a person of authority, courts where some witness refused to give evidence, the court held – Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the witness to whom the prosecutrix narrates the incident of rape may not always be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Though the same disbelief in version of defense is not there always. In many judgments it has been held that the prosecution bears the onus of establishing all elements of the offence, including the absence of consent, to the required standard of proof. This standard, in criminal cases, is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The courts have refused to convict someone and held mere presence of an accused in the same house is not in itself sufficient to infer that he acted in concert with the co-accused in the commission of the offence of rape. Also, courts did not take it lightly when the accused was said to be caught on spot but prosecution failed to explain injuries on the accused and
acquitted the accused because the defence version that it was a case of consent was accepted by courts.

Even if the fact of rape is established beyond a reasonable doubt, an accused can not be convicted unless there is a reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime. The courts have held – In order for a conviction for rape to be sustained, the prosecution must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of rape occurred, but must also present reliable evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime.

In Uday Vs State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 1639 Apex Court held – The prosecution has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weaknesses of the case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he cannot be convicted.

This said, a lot depends on the evidence of the prosecutrix in court. And whenever there is a question of consent only, as a general precaution, I would advise individuals to retain evidence of consent in the form of written or electronic form about the consent. In our culture, it is not uncommon that young people get into relationships which can have social repercussions. Not only in villages or small cities, even in metros, religious, caste and sectarian pressures can make girls who were otherwise consenting to accuse the boy with rape and put him in a precarious situation. And when it comes to your word against mine, more or less it is girl’s word which weighs heavy.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us