Must Believe Child Sexual Abuse Survivors’ Testimonies: Madras HC

Madras HC said the courts have to believe what the child survivor says in sexual abuse cases.

Image used for representational purposes. 

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

Holding up rigorous imprisonment as punishment for a child rapist, the Madras High Court on Monday, 21 October, made clear observations on rape, stating that courts have to believe what the child survivor says in such cases, and not to brush aside the survivor’s version based on a technicality.

Justice S Vaidyanathan said that the misconception that the children are made to lie by their parents must not affect the manner in which courts respond to cases of child sexual abuse.

According to reports, the high court was hearing a case in which a man had sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in Nagapattinam in 2011. According to the case, the man Ganapathy, had raped the girl when she was playing with her friends. Based on a complaint given by the girl’s mother, the Nagapattinam police had registered an FIR against Ganapathy for rape.

Justice S Vaidyanathan, who was hearing the case on Monday, junked several arguments made by the defence on technical lines, as per reports. He also overruled several arguments made by the counsel for the accused in relation to the trustworthiness of the victim’s statement, absence of injuries on the child, and initial delay in filing the complaint.

On arguments that accused the mother of delaying the filing of a complaint, Justice Vaidyanathan said that the rape of a girl of a tender age will have adverse effects, which her family needs time to recover from before they rush to the police station to lodge a complaint. Attributing the delay to normal human conduct, the judge also said that in a village setting, neither the girl nor her parents would be tempted to rush to the police station immediately.

With regards to arguments that pointed to the absence of external injuries, the judge said that it is not possible to find bloodstains on the girl’s body four days after the rape. He also pointed out that there is no reason to not believe the victim’s statement especially when she has withstood cross-examination even after two years of the incident.

(The story was first published on The News Minute and has been republished in an arrangement.)