CASE BRIEF: SAKSHI v. UNION OF INDIA, (2004) 5 SCC 518

CASE NAME	Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518
CITATION	2004 SCC (Cri) 1645, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 116
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Chief Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur
PETITIONER	Sakshi
RESPONDENT	Union of India and Others
DECIDED ON	26th May 2004

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling in the Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) case, which dealt with the question of child victims’ testimony in sexual assault cases. The prosecution was concerned with figuring out if a child victim’s testimony, particularly in situations of sexual assaults, should be given the same weight as an adult’s testimony. The case started when Sakshi, a juvenile, was reportedly sexually abused. In its argument, the Union of India argued that some procedural rules pertaining to the questioning of minor witnesses were not applicable.

The sensitive question of whether a child, as a victim, could be permitted to testify in a way that would preserve their dignity and stop additional stress made the case noteworthy. The Supreme Court had to strike a compromise between the accused’s right to a fair trial and the child’s rights. Concerns about how testimony should be documented in cases of sexual abuse, especially when the victim is a minor, were also addressed. In this instance, the court established crucial rules and procedures for safeguarding child victims throughout the trial process of sexual offense cases.

In terms of protecting children’s rights, standards for documenting evidence, and providing justice in situations of sexual assault while preserving the mental and emotional health of the young victims, this case represents a significant advancement in the body of legal precedent.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the writ petition, the petitioner has become increasingly concerned about the sharp rise in violence, particularly sexual violence against women and children, and the respondent authorities’ application of Sections 377, 375/376, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Other than penile/vaginal penetration, the respondent authorities have a tendency to treat sexual assault as a lesser offense under Section 377 or Section 354 of the IPC rather than as a sexual offense under Section 375/376 of the IPC. In accordance with Section 354 of the IPC, which outrages a woman’s modesty, and Section 377 of the IPC, which treats unnatural offenses, it has been discovered that sexual abuse of women and minor children through penetrations other than penile/vaginal penetration which can take any other form and may also involve the use of objects whose impact on the victims is in no way less than the trauma of penile/vaginal penetration as traditionally understood under Section 375/376.

ISSUES RAISED

Does Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code not apply to all non-consensual penetrations and should not be restricted to penile-vaginal penetration alone?
Whether the fundamental goal and aim of the punishment for rape under Section 376(2)(f) “Whosever commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age” are defeated by a narrow interpretation of “penetration” in the Explanation to Section 375 (rape)?
If a consenting party can be held accountable as an abettor or otherwise, should non-consensual penetration of a child under the age of 12 still be regarded as an offense under Section 377 (“Unnatural Offences”) on par with some types of consensual penetration (like consensual homosexual sex)?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

According to the petitioner, a straightforward interpretation of Section 375 would demonstrate that the phrase “sexual intercourse” is undefined and, as such, open to judicial interpretation.
Furthermore, the definition of penetration in Section 375 IPC does not restrict it to vaginal or penile penetration in any way. The Code’s definition of “rape” is incredibly broad and encompasses a variety of sexual offenses.
The majority of women and children are denied access to proper remedy in breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution when the definition of “rape” is restricted to abuse that occurs solely through penile or vaginal penetration. This is also in opposition to the current understanding of sexual abuse law.
According to statistics and data, it is typical for children, especially young girls, to be sexually abused in ways other than penile/vaginal penetration. These methods can include object/vaginal penetration, penile/anal penetration, penile/oral penetration, or finger/vaginal penetration.
It is argued that the purpose of amending Section 376 IPC by adding sub-section 2(f) is undermined by classifying these abuses as crimes covered by Section 354 IPC or Section 377 IPC. The aforementioned perspective also runs counter to how sexual abuse and violence are currently understood globally.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

Sections 375 and 376 were significantly altered by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. That Act also added IPC Sections 376A, 376B, 376C, and 376D. These sections give special/adequate provisions for women and children. Section 375 IPC defines “rape” explicitly. Sexual offenses beyond penile/vaginal penetration are unnatural. Under Section 377, unnatural offenses are punished harshly.
Section 377 provides for life imprisonment or imprisonment of either type for up to 10 years, with a fine. Section 377 punishes unnatural offenses as harshly as Section 376 does rape. Sections 354 and 506 punish criminal assault by outraging a woman’s modesty, whereas Sections 376 and 377 punish sexual offenses.
The petitioner’s listed sexual offenses penile/anus penetration, penile/oral penetration, finger/anile penetration, finger/vaginal penetration, and object/vaginal penetration—are serious and unnatural and should be punished under Section 377. Thus, the petitioner’s claim that Section 377 offenses are lesser is false.
The counter affidavit also states that penetration of the vagina, anus, or urethra with any portion of another person under penile penetration is unnatural and punishable under Section 377 IPC. Raping a girl under 12 is punishable under section 378(2)(f). Any child sexual abuse other than penile penetration is unnatural and punishable under Section 377 IPC. Section 354 IPC punishes assault or criminal force to outrage a woman’s modesty. Unnatural sexual offenses are not covered by this Section.
Section 375 defines rape as penile/vaginal penetration; any other penetration is unnatural sexual offense. Such offenses are punished harshly under Section 377. Sections 375, 376, and 377 do not violate Articles 14, 15(3), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Penile/anal, finger/vaginal, and object/vaginal penetration are the most unnatural types of deviant sexual behavior punishable by Section 377.

JUDGMENT

The victim or witnesses may experience extremely high levels of terror or astonishment at the sight of the accused. He or she might not be able to provide all the information about the incident in such a circumstance, which could lead to an injustice. As a result, a screen or similar setup can be created so that witnesses or the victim are spared the pain of seeing the accused’s face or body. Cross-examination questions are frequently crafted with the intention of embarrassing or perplexing rape and child abuse victims.

The idea is that the victim may not speak up or provide specifics about specific acts perpetrated by the accused due to feelings of shame or embarrassment. Therefore, it would be preferable if the accused’s cross-examination questions were sent in writing to the court’s presiding officer, who might then relay them to the victim or witnesses in an unflattering manner. Hardly any argument can be made against the petitioner’s other recommendation that enough breaks be provided whenever a child or rape victim is called upon to testify. When investigating or trying offenses under Sections 354 and 377 IPC, the rules of sub-section (2) of Section 327 Cr.P.C. should also be applied.

The petitioners’ recommendations are for the greater good of society and will further the cause of justice. There is an urgent need for adequate laws in this area because the number of child abuse and rape cases is rising at an alarming rate. We sincerely hope and trust that the Parliament will take the petitioner’s comments seriously and enact the necessary law as soon as it is due.

CONCLUSION

The Court acknowledged that children frequently have trouble recalling terrible events and talked about the significance of the child’s evidence in situations involving sexual offenses. In order to guarantee that a juvenile witness is handled with consideration, the Court adopted guidelines that permit the use of video conferencing to record their evidence. This clause lessens the emotional suffering brought on by the proceedings by ensuring that the youngster does not directly face the offender in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a child’s evidence shouldn’t be disregarded based just on their age or developmental stage. Judicial officers should be trained to carefully evaluate it, and it should instead be evaluated on the basis of its content.

The Court’s acknowledgment that using alternate techniques to record the child’s testimony is crucial for their protection was another noteworthy feature of the ruling. This includes the potential to examine the youngster in a way that protects their mental well-being while guaranteeing the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court also emphasized the significance of creating a child-friendly environment in the legal system, free from excessive stress or intimidation. This ruling was a first step in giving vulnerable witnesses protection first priority during the legal system, especially when it comes to instances involving sexual offenses.

A significant step toward safeguarding child victims of sexual assaults during legal proceedings was taken in the Sakshi v. Union of India case. The Supreme Court achieved a compromise between protecting the rights of the child and guaranteeing the accused a fair trial by establishing rules for kids’ testimony. It established important guidelines for the use of video conferencing, evidence recording, and the requirement for a kid-friendly court setting. This ruling continues to be a crucial guideline in instances involving minors and has had a significant influence on how courts handle child victims. The decision upholds the integrity of the legal system and the child’s dignity by acknowledging that protecting witnesses who are at risk is a crucial component of the justice system.