Allahabad High Court Takes Stern Action Against Advocate for Vilifying Rape Victim in Court
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a powerful rebuke to an advocate for engaging in what it termed a "wholly unbecoming" attack on the character of a rape victim during court proceedings. In a significant ruling, the court dismissed an appeal filed by a government hospital pharmacist challenging a chargesheet and a local court's cognisance in a rape case registered by a Dalit woman in May 2022.
Court Denounces 'Abuse of Legal Process'
Expressing deep concern over the conduct of the appellant's counsel, a bench presided by Justice Anil Kumar observed in its judgment dated January 29 that such behavior "constitutes an abuse of the process of law." The court emphasized that it is not expected from a member of the Bar to rely on material that attacks a woman's character, noting that such averments contradict settled legal principles.
The bench explicitly stated: "Any attempt to portray a woman as being of 'easy virtue' or to cast aspersions on her moral character is wholly irrelevant and is expressly barred under Section 53A and the proviso to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." The court further highlighted that such allegations violate the woman's constitutional right to dignity and privacy under Article 21, amounting to character assassination that cannot be used to discredit her or defeat her legal rights.
Details of the Controversial Submissions
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel made several contentious submissions:
- He claimed the victim was a habitual blackmailer who extorted money, presenting affidavits from five locals alleging she would stop people, demand money, and threaten false criminal implications.
- He referenced an affidavit allegedly filed by the victim in April 2022, suggesting she exaggerated the incident in the FIR due to being upset with the appellant for refusing treatment.
- He argued these affidits established a pattern of blackmailing behavior and pointed to an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the FIR, with no specific date or time disclosed for the alleged incident.
In contrast, the additional government advocate countered that the victim's statements to police and magistrate were recorded promptly and consistently supported the prosecution. He maintained the chargesheet was based on legally collected evidence and the cognisance order suffered no illegality.
Court's Strong Observations on Professional Conduct
The bench did not mince words in criticizing the advocate's approach, noting a "serious lapse in professional conduct." The court deprecated the practice of annexing and relying upon affidavits containing scandalous allegations, stating such pleadings strike at the very foundation of ethical advocacy.
Particularly concerning was the court's observation that the counsel attempted to "browbeat the court" by openly stating the order would be challenged before the Supreme Court and making misleading statements about earlier court orders. Despite repeated requests to confine arguments to the case diary material, the counsel insisted on lengthy submissions based on extraneous material.
"The affidavits relied upon by learned counsel cannot be considered, as they do not form part of the case diary. Moreover, the language used therein is wholly unacceptable," the bench firmly stated.
Court's Assessment of the Case Merits
In its comprehensive order, the court found the victim's statement had remained consistent from the beginning, with allegations corroborated by statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. "There is nothing on record at this stage to discredit or disbelieve her version," the court noted.
Regarding the delay in FIR registration, the court clarified this is particularly common in sexual offence cases and should be examined during trial rather than at the cognisance stage. The court also expressed skepticism about the victim's alleged affidavit, suggesting it "appears, prima facie, to be prepared under influence" and cannot be relied upon currently.
Final Disposition and Broader Implications
The Allahabad High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as lacking merit, upholding both the chargesheet and the cognisance order. The court directed that the trial proceed according to law, ensuring the judicial process moves forward without further unnecessary delays.
This ruling sends a strong message about appropriate conduct in legal proceedings, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual violence. By firmly rejecting attempts to attack a victim's character and emphasizing the protections afforded under evidence law and constitutional provisions, the judgment reinforces ethical standards for legal practitioners while upholding the dignity and rights of survivors seeking justice through India's judicial system.
