India's Supreme Court once gave an array of curious reasons about why an Indian woman would not make a false rape claim.
In a 1983 judgement, the top court said that western and Indian women were vastly different.
In the West, the judges said a woman may level a false allegation of sexual molestation against a man because she may be a "gold digger", suffering from neurosis, hold grudges against men, want to gain notoriety, be jealous and so on.
"By and large these factors are not relevant in India," the judges said.
The court said an Indian woman in the "tradition bound, non-permissive society" would not lie about being sexually assaulted because such an allegation would lead to her being socially ostracised, "risk losing the love and respect" of her husband and relatives, and if unmarried she would fear the rape might hamper her prospects of getting married.
Mrinal Satish, a doctorate from Yale Law School who teaches at Delhi's National Law University, studied this and some 800 other judgements in all courts and found that myths and stereotypes often informed rape sentencing in India.
"Rape myths are highly detrimental to rape victims. They are prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims and rapists," Dr Satish says in his latest work on reforming rape sentencing in India.
For one, Indian courts, according to law scholars like Ratna Kapur, have for long viewed the typical rape victim as "chaste, pure, monogamous, honourable and confined to the domestic sphere". She would generally be a "virgin or a loyal wife".
Courts also refer to "typical reactions" by victims in court. One court referred to the demeanour of women raped by a guru in Tamil Nadu - two of them broke down while testifying, and another had felt giddy. In another case, the top court observed that a rape victim "feels a deep sense of deathless shame".
"Since the law prevents courts from using chastity-related factors when trying to fix guilt during trial, the site of stereotyping has now moved to sentencing, where wide discretion existed until recently."
Examining the judgements, Dr Satish found that higher sentences were given to the convicted man when injuries are present on the body of the victim and sentences imposed on men convicted of raping unmarried woman were higher than those imposed on men convicted of raping married women.
"Thus loss of virginity, damage it causes to unmarried women appears to lead to higher sentences," he says.
'Reciprocal passion'
Also, accused men who were relatives, neighbours, or had a relationship with the victim got lower sentences compared with strangers. Defendants convicted of raping victims with whom they had eloped were also given lower sentences in trial courts, high courts and the Supreme Court.
High courts have reduced sentences in cases of elopement saying the offence had been committed because of "reciprocal passion" and "out of youthful exuberance".
Women rights lawyer Flavia Agnes told me things had improved since tough new anti-rape laws were introduced in the country after the brutal gang rape and murder of a student in 2012 in Delhi - although sexual attacks against women and children continue to be reported across the country.
For one, the discretion of the judges has been reduced with the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for the convicted: seven years for non-aggravated rape and 10 years for aggravated rape.
Post a Comment