Court case(1996) 2 SCC 384

A girl below sixteen, returning from her school examination in Ludhiana district, was pushed into a car by three young men, taken to a tubewell kotha, made to drink liquor and raped by each of them in turn, and left near her school the next morning. The FIR was lodged a day late because the family first thought of the family's honour. The trial court acquitted all three, doubting the girl because of the delay, because she had not been able to say whether the car was a Fiat or an Ambassador, and because she had not raised an alarm. The State appealed.

The Supreme Court (A.S. Anand J) set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused under ss. 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on a par with that of an injured witness; the court should not look for corroboration as a matter of course. If her evidence inspires confidence it may be acted on without corroboration; the court looks for corroboration only when there are compelling reasons. Delay in lodging an FIR in a sex offence is natural, as the family thinks of reputation first, and is not by itself a ground to doubt the case. The trial court's remarks that the girl was of loose character were "wholly unjustified"; the court must not sit in judgment on her morals. Rape trials should as far as possible be held in camera under s. 327(2) CrPC, preferably by women judges, and the victim's identity must be protected.