Partners for Law in Development (PLD) on Friday released the findings of a study on pre-trial and trial stages of rape prosecutions in Delhi that was done observing 16 cases in four fast track special courts in Delhi from January 2014 to March 2015.
The study found that in the trial phase, the defence questions during cross-examination are inevitably hostile, often sexually suggestive to insinuate consent. It was found that none of the cases were concluded within a period of two months and that there is a lack of legal orientation of the victim on legal procedure.
Speaking at a panel discussion following the release of the report, senior advocate Rebecca John said the Criminal Law Amendment of 2013 was enacted following the Nirbhaya incident to plug gaps in legal framework and redress for victims of sexual violence, which has brought about a change as courts are far more sensitive in Delhi.
However, she pointed out that attempting to complete a rape trial in two months was completely unrealistic. “I have been an opponent of fast track courts because I feel you do not end up giving justice to anyone. There is a bypass of procedures, a use of short cuts and quality of evidence is compromised,” she said.
Language in courtroom
She called for a change in the language inside a courtroom, as it is often used to intimidate the witness.
“While the witness is under cross-examination, the judicial officer is unable to control the kind of questioning that takes place of the rape victim. It is not because the judicial officer is not sympathetic to the rape victim but because but of the questions that she is asked are often an attempt to shame her,” she said citing examples from the study.
PLD executive director Madhu Mehra said while police paperwork appears like clockwork when you check records, the timeline is often not consistent when you speak to the victim. The report found that some victims experienced obstacles and harassment from the police in registering an FIR. And in many cases, zero FIR was not registered. In the pre-trial stage, the study also found that in most cases medical examination was not conducted in consonance with stipulated guidelines and in some cases the medical staff displayed hostility toward the victims.
The report also said although the prosecutrix was shielded from the accused within the court by in-camera trials and a screen to shield her from intimidation by the accused during the trial, there was need for victim-witness protection outside court premises, where the accused and his relatives continue to have access to the victim, and within the court precincts in waiting areas and outside the court.
The reports says the most pressing lacuna that emerges is the absence of support services that enable the victim to access judicial remedies and enable restorative justice within and outside the court processes.
