Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

Sex worker can’t cry rape if denied money: SC

Narada Desk | October 12, 2016 6:48 pm Print
Even though the evidence given by a woman alleging sexual assault must get importance from the trial court, but it could not be taken as “gospel truth” by the court.
supreme court

Supreme Court while acquitting three accused of rape charges, ruled that a sex worker cannot lodge a complaint of sexual assault against her customers if they refuse to pay.

This comes from the bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy who said that even though the evidence given by a woman alleging sexual assault must get importance from the trial court, but it could not be taken as “gospel truth” by the court.

“The evidence of prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always, without exception, be taken as gospel truth,” the bench said.

The ruling comes in a 20-year-old case from Bengaluru. A woman-maid had alleged that three persons abducted her in an auto, took her to a garage and repeatedly raped her.

The three accused had been ordered to be prosecuted by Karnataka High Court, who then challenged the order. While the SC bench examined the witness all over again, it said, “Her conduct during the alleged ordeal is also unlike a victim of rape and betrays somewhat submissive and consensual disposition.”

According to the woman’s statement in trial court, after the three accused dumped her, she went back to locate the garage and later on lodged the complaint, so as to enable her to give proper evidence about the crime.

However, soon enough, the roommate disposing as a witness informed the court that the woman used to take financial help from the accused, and after discharging her household duties, she would get involved in Prostitution for the night. She further claimed that the woman had approached the accused for Rs 1,000 for which they declined.

The woman had confessed that she lodged the complaint to compel the accused to pay the money she wanted, Times of India reported. Following this, the bench said, “This witness’s version is plausible, and thus, fits in with the defence plea to demolish the prosecution case.”

Justice Roy, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “Her vengeful attitude in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her, if true, demonstrably evinces a conduct manifested by a feeling of frustration stoked by an intense feeling of deprivation of something expected, desired or promised.”

The bench concluded, “We are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants to the hilt as obligated in law and thus, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.” The three accused have been acquitted following the conclusion.

Loading...