In Brief
A child victim of alleged rape in 1986 remained silent and traumatized when examined in court decades later. The trial court convicted the accused on medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, but the High Court acquitted him citing contradictions in the eyewitness account and the victim's silence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a traumatized child's silence cannot be held against the prosecution. The Court ruled that while prosecutrix testimony is ordinarily essential, conviction can stand on credible medical and circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify due to trauma. Contradictions in witness statements, when supported by corroborating evidence, must be judged in that context. The conviction was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.