A landmark Supreme Court judgment in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal has shed light on a significant legal principle: bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. This ruling challenges common myths about sexual assault and emphasizes the nuanced ways victims respond to trauma.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR filed by Jawahari Lal (PW-1) on March 19, 1998, alleging the abduction of his minor daughter (the prosecutrix) by Dalip Kumar @ Dalli. According to the prosecution, the alleged abduction occurred on March 18, 1998, around 3:00 PM, but the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours later, at 7:00 PM the following day.

Key events and claims:

• Incident and FIR Filing:

  The prosecutrix was allegedly kidnapped from her village. However, her recovery from the appellant’s house raised questions about the nature of the incident. The delayed FIR further weakened the prosecution’s case, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the delay.

• Testimony of the Prosecutrix:
  

  During her testimony, the prosecutrix revealed that marriage discussions were ongoing between her and the appellant but were opposed by her father due to caste differences. She admitted she voluntarily accompanied the appellant and did not raise any alarm, contradicting allegations of coercion.

• Role of Key Witness:

  Sarita, the prosecutrix’s sister, reportedly saw her going with the appellant but was not presented as a witness. This omission deprived the prosecution of potentially corroborative testimony.

• Medical Examination and Age Evidence:

  A medical examination showed no physical signs of injury or sexual assault. The prosecutrix’s age was estimated between 16 and 18 years, leaving room for doubt about whether she was legally a minor.

The trial court convicted Dalip Kumar under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (procuration of a minor girl), while acquitting him of more serious charges such as rape (Section 376 IPC). The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Examined by the Court

1. Proof of Abduction Under Section 363 IPC:

   Whether the prosecution proved that the prosecutrix was a minor and was taken without lawful consent.

2. Intent to Procure a Minor Under Section 366-A IPC:

   Whether there was evidence of intent to induce the prosecutrix into illicit intercourse.

3. Delay in Filing the FIR:

   Whether the unexplained delay of over 28 hours in filing the FIR affected the credibility of the case.

4. Absence of Bodily Injuries:

   Whether the lack of physical injuries negated the charges of sexual assault or abduction.

5. Proof of Age:

   Whether the prosecutrix’s age was conclusively established to prove she was a minor.

Supreme Court Observations

1. Bodily Injuries Are Not Mandatory:

   The Court referenced its Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023) to dispel the myth that sexual assault must leave injuries. It acknowledged that victims may react differently to trauma, influenced by fear, shock, and social stigma.

2. Voluntary Accompaniment:

   The prosecutrix admitted she went with the appellant willingly and raised no alarm, undermining the prosecution’s claims of abduction or coercion.

3. Delay in FIR:

   The FIR, lodged over 28 hours after the alleged incident, lacked a credible explanation, which weakened the case.

4. Failure to Present Key Witness:

   Sarita’s absence as a witness deprived the case of vital corroboration.

5. Unclear Age Evidence:

   The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was below 18 years, as her age was estimated between 16 and 18 years.

Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. It stated:

“To sustain the conviction of the appellant on the basis of evidence adduced would not at all be justified.”

The Court quashed the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment, acquitting Dalip Kumar and discharging his bail bond.

Provisions Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Chapter V of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, outlines offenses against women. Section 74 addresses acts of assault or criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty:

• Act Prohibited: Assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty.
• Punishment: Imprisonment (1–5 years) and fines.
• Objective: Protect the dignity and integrity of women.

Conclusion

This Supreme Court judgment challenges stereotypes surrounding sexual assault, emphasizing evidence-based approaches and acknowledging the varied ways victims experience trauma. By recognizing these nuances, the Court has set a precedent for more empathetic and just legal proceedings in sexual assault cases.