Bodily Injuries Not Essential to Prove Sexual Harassment

By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma

Introduction

No one-size fits all reaction to Sexual Assault: In a landmark judgment reaffirming sensitivity and nuance in the adjudication of sexual assault cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had emphasized that the presence of physical injuries or a dramatic outcry is not a prerequisite to establish the offence of sexual assault.

A bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti emphasized that trauma manifests differently in different individuals and rigid assumptions about how a victim ‘should’ behave are both unrealistic and unjust.

“It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries. Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction”

The court underscored the dangerous myth that equates visible bodily harm with authenticity in sexual assault claims. Survivors respond to trauma in myriad ways- some freeze in fear, some go into shock, while others may feel too ashamed or powerless to raise a voice. Social stigma, fear of blame and psychological trauma often silence victims, making it difficult for them to report or even process the assault.

This observation came in the case of D. Kumar @Dalli vs. State of Uttaranchal (2025)[1] where the Supreme Court revisited a conviction stemming from a decades-old allegation of kidnapping and sexual assault.

Facts of the Case:

The incident traces back to March 18, 1998 when the girl/victim was allegedly abducted by the accused at around 3 p.m.

A delayed FIR was registered more than 24 hours later, at 7 p.m. on March 19, 1998. Notably the name of the accused was not mentioned in this initial complaint. Subsequently, the accused was charged under Sections 363, 366-A, 366, 376 read with Sections 149 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Key Testimony

During the trial, the prosecutor, i.e., the girl/victim herself testified:

1. That she had accompanied the accused voluntarily.
2. In fact in her testimony, she had stated that talks of her marriage with the accused was going on but her father was opposed to the marriage as both belong to different castes.
3. Crucially, she admitted that she did not raise any alarm or resistance at the time of the alleged abduction.

Additionally, the younger sister of the victim, who was purportedly present and witnessed her going with the accused, was not examined by the prosecution- raising further questions about the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

Medical and Age Evidence

The court observed that the girl’s medical examination conducted soon after the alleged incident, did not reveal any injuries or signs of trauma. The examining doctor confirmed the absence of any swelling, injury or abnormal findings on her person. ‘She was overall normal’- the court observed.

Furthermore, the examining doctor estimated her age to be between 16-18 years, leaving room for ambiguity regarding her minority status at the relevant time.

Findings of the Lower Court

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of rape charged under Section 376 IPC but convicted him under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducement of a minor girl).

The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the conviction under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC.

Hence, aggrieved by the same, the accused challenged these convictions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Observations of the Supreme Court

Taking a deeper look at the facts, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant/accused holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences charged.

In doing so, the court made several critical observations:

• • On Bodily Injuries and Sexual Assault: One of the most striking aspects of the judgment was the Court’s emphasis on dispelling stereotypes surrounding sexual assault.The court categorically stated that bodily injuries are not essential to prove sexual assault. It challenged the widespread misconception that physical injuries are the sole indicators of sexual violence.
  • Reference to Supreme Court’s Handbook on Stereotypes: Backing its stance with insights form the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (2023), the court highlighted how trauma impacts individuals differently. The handbook draws an analogy:“Different people react differently to traumatic events. For example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman’s reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no “correct” or “appropriate” way in which a survivor or victim behaves.”
  • Failure of Prosecution:

The Court pointed out several procedural gaps and inconsistencies in the concerned case:

• • 1. The prosecutors’ own statement suggested that she was not subjected to any coercion;
    2. The failure to examine a key witness i.e., the sister of the prosecutrix weakened the prosecution’s case;
    3. The age of the prosecutrix being possibly 18 meant Section 366-A, which pertains to inducement of a minor girl, was inapplicable.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366-A had not been met, leading to the appellant’s acquittal vide order dated January 16, 2025.

Conclusion

This judgment goes beyond just one case. It is a much-needed reaffirmation that survivors of sexual assault must not be judged based on assumptions or stereotypes or rigid behavioral templates.

By dismantling harmful myths and endorsing a trauma-informed perspective, the Apex Court had taken a vital step towards ensuring justice is both fair and compassionate.

[1] Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013