Recently, the division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising, Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri,upheld the conviction of a man accused of raping his one-year-old granddaughter.

During the trials, the Court expressed its concern regarding the increasing crimes against women and children. The bench noted that despite more than a decade having passed since the controversial and heartbreakng Nirbhaya case, substantial progress in addressing these issues remains same.

The Court also emphasized the fundamental rights of women to life, liberty, respect, and equality. The court urged the judicial system to exercise greater vigilance during rape trial proceedings.

 “Nothing has improved even after more than a decade of ‘Nirbhaya’. Women also have the right to life and liberty. They also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. Women, in them, have many personalities combined. They are not playthings. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is a blot on society and a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. Therefore, courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape,” the court stated.

 Case Brief -

 In the Criminal matter, a minor girl got raped by her own maternal grandfather. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1989.

The appellant, contesting his conviction, raised multiple grounds of appeal, challenging the evidence presented against him.

Counsel for the accused argued that the trial court had failed to adequately assess the evidence, which, he claimed, contained contradictions and discrepancies. 

Further, advocate for the counsel mentioned that the prosecution had not effectively demonstrated a motive behind the alleged crime and had failed to establish any attempt at penetration. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that key witnesses were close relatives of the victim, potentially introducing bias into their testimonies.

“The sole testimony of PW-Kajal, duly corroborated by the Medical Expert, is sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant.”

While addressing the importance of medical evidence, bench held that the diagnosis of rape falls beyond the purview of a medical expert, who can only verify recent sexual activity.

The court also emphasized that even an attempt at penetration, regardless of semen emission, constitutes the offense of rape. The court drew upon observations from Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to underscore this point.

“A medical expert treating a rape survivor can only certify about any evidence of recent sexual activity. It is none of his business to opine whether rape is committed or not. Rape is a judicial determination. Since rape is a crime, it is only for a Court to determine whether rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC is made or not. Offence of rape can be established even without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains,” the bench affirmed.