Case Analysis: Lillu @ Rajesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Disha Verma

University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU. 

Case Name

Lilu @ Rajesh and Anr v. State of Haryana

Citation

(2013) 2 SCR 774, (2013) 14 SCC 643

Parties

Petitioner - Lilu Rajesh and others

Respondent - State of Haryana

Introduction

In a country that is referred to as ‘Bharat Maa’, the greatest irony exists in the number of rape instances it witnesses. At present, it would be safe to state that this number has grown faster than the country’s economic growth. The judiciary has been working in its best capacity to ensure justice for the victims of rape. The case of Lillu @ Rajesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana is a breakthrough in Indian law that ensures the dignity of the rape survivors. The case ensures that tests like the two-finger test, which has no rational basis for judicial decisions in rape cases, are discontinued. A ban on this test is a fundamental step towards improving the position of women in India. The test not only breaches the privacy of the victims but also robs them of their dignity. The Hon’ble Court rightfully held that the victim’s past sexual intercourse and its frequency had no bearing on the determination of her consent during the act of rape.

Facts of the Case

·       On 6th March 2001, the rape victim, Raj Bala, and her mother (Savitri) were at their home in the village of Bandhana. Savitri’s husband was working in the field, while her daughter-in-law (Kamlesh) was too in the field. She heard the voice of the victim that Satish caught her hold of along with Sitta. The victim's mother's health was not in a condition that she could even stand to help. When Kamlesh returned, she came to know that the victim was kidnapped by Satish and Sitta.

·       The family reported the incident to the police on 7th March 2001. The police recorded the incident and lodged a first information report against the accused for kidnapping under Section 363 and for abducting, kidnapping any woman to compel her for marriage, etc. under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

·       The police arrested all the ones accused on 9th March 2001. All the accused were presented before the court with charges under Sections 363, 366 read with Sections 34, 376 (punishment for rape), 376 (2) (g) and 506 (criminal intimidating) of the Indian Penal Code.

·       The court had resolved the ambiguity of the victim’s age. After examining the school certificate, the trial court concluded that as per the victim’s date of birth, she was 13 years 9 months and 2 days old at the time of the commission of the offence. Thus, the presence of consent of the victim became immaterial to constitute the offence of rape.

·       The doctor who had examined the victim’s body post the alleged sexual intercourse had reported that there was no bleeding, nor were any external injuries on any part of the victim’s body.

Issues Involved

·       Whether habituation to sexual intercourse was a relevant question for a rape trial; and

·       Whether the ‘two-finger’ test was violative of the rights of a rape victim under Article 21 of the Constitution

Arguments Advanced

·       The counsel for the defendant argued that the victim was above the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged incident.

·       The counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the victim's minor age. Thus, it stated that the victim had provided consent for the sexual intercourse, and the same did not amount to rape under Section 376 of the IPC. It claimed that there was an absence of corroboration between the victim’s statements and the medical evidence.

·       The trial court had resolved the ambiguity of the victim’s age. After examining the school certificate, the trial court concluded that as per the victim’s date of birth, she was 13 years 9 months and 2 days old at the time of the commission of the offence. Thus, the presence of consent of the victim became immaterial to constitute the offence of rape.

·       The foremost argument advanced by the counsel for the accused-appellant was that the medical examination had revealed, through a two-finger test, that the possibility of the victim being habituated to sexual intercourse could not be ruled out.

·       The counsel further argued that the victim was a woman of weak character, who had been habitual to sexual intercourse. Thus, the victim had proper consent present before the sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim, the appellants claimed.

·       The convictions of the appellant and his co-accused were appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, but the petitions were denied. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, expressing dissatisfaction with the High Court's ruling.

·       The prosecution remained unrepresented by the State of Haryana and the burden to represent the victim was left on the public exchequer. The same was addressed satirically by the Supreme Court, stating, “On the other hand, the State of Haryana, as usual, remained unrepresented as the government counsel duly appointed by the State considered it their privilege not to appear in court and become the burden on the public exchequer. So, the court has to examine the case more consciously going through the record and examining the correctness of the findings recorded by the courts below.”

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed by the apex court, finding a lack of merit. The Hon’ble Court expressed disappointment in the past use of the two-finger test to decide upon rape cases. It held that whether the victim of rape has been previously habitual to sexual intercourse or not is immaterial to determine a case unless the character of the victim itself is an issue in the case. Even if a rape victim had lost her virginity earlier does not provide a licence to any man to commit the offence of rape on her, and escape the charges thereby. Whether a woman has been one of easy virtue or of a high moral character, a woman possesses the inherent right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse by anyone. Further, even if evidence shows that a woman was habituated to sexual intercourse before the commission of rape, it cannot be implied that the victim was an unchaste woman or a woman with a loose character. A woman has the right to protect her dignity, and cannot be subjected to rape for the reason of loose moral character. A woman is not a vulnerable object or prey of sexual assault. The Court clearly

As a consequence, the apex court put a ban on the two-finger test to determine rape cases, stating that such tests lack rationale and morality. Such tests do no good than only harming the dignity and privacy of rape survivors. Medical examinations cannot be of such a character that they end up being inhumane, cruel, and degrading for rape victims.

Finally, the Hon’ble Court concluded that the two-finger test is inhumane in nature, and even if the report from it is affirmative, the presumption of consent from the victim cannot be derived ipso facto. The case, in conclusion, requires no special interference by the Supreme Court, it stated, and thus the appeal was dismissed.

Broader Social Impact

The apex court upheld the dignity of rape victims by banning the two-finger test, also finding it violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment has strengthened the rights of rape survivors, saving them from medical examinations that do not contribute to judicial decisions but only harm the victim’s dignity and privacy. As the test was found to be invalid for scientific or legal standing, the case has also led to changes in medical examinations in rape cases, advocating for survivor-friendly medical procedures.

The judgment serves as a leading factor that shifts the legal narrative in rape cases from victim-blaming to justice for survivors. It serves as a progressive judicial precedent, furthering the security of rape victims’ dignity.

The decision has also fuelled discussions on the treatment of rape survivors in the country, calling together various activists and organisations that advocate for the rights of women. A matter that had long been ignored finally gained momentum and began to receive the attention it needed.

The case also invites a second look at the legal validity of medical examinations in criminal cases. Medical practices, like the two-finger test, that provide no scientific or legal basis for the determination of a judicial decision, have to be ruled out from the judicial procedures of the country. Later, in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, 2022, the apex court yet again affirmed its 2013 decision and condemned the two-finger test.

The concerned case is a major breakthrough in the history of Indian rape cases, serving as a major reform in the matter. By prioritising the dignity of rape survivors, and considering the mental repercussions of such degrading medical procedures, the case is an important one in the Indian history of rape cases.

References

1.     Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 S.C.C. 643. Available at: https://courtverdict.com/supreme-court-of-india/lillu-rajesh-anr-vs-state-of-haryana.

2.     Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2013) S.C.C. (Cri) 1500. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b493ed607dba348f008c29.

3.     Supreme Court Says Two-Finger Test Violates Victim’s Privacy and Dignity, Bar & Bench (Oct. 31, 2022). Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-says-two-finger-test-violates-victims-privacy-and-dignity.

4.     Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana: The Case That Banned Two-Fingers Test in India, The Lawmatics (Oct. 31, 2022). Available at: https://thelawmatics.in/lillu-rajesh-v-state-of-haryana-the-case-that-banned-two-fingers-test-in-india/.

5.     Youth for Integrity & Morality, A Critical Study of Marital Rape in India (2020). Available at: https://yimfindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/19.pdf.