BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To say at the beginning what we cannot help saying at the end:human goodness has limits - human depravity has none. The need of the hour however, is not exasperation.

(2.) The need of the hour is to mould and evolve the law so as to make it more sensitive and responsive to the demands of the time in order to resolve the basic problem:'Whether, when, and to what extent corroboration to the testimony of a victim of rape is essential to establish the charge." And the problem has special significance for the women in India, for, while they have often been idolized, adored, and even worshipped, for ages they have also been exploited and denied even handed justice - sixty crores anxious eyes of Indian women are therefore focussed on this problem. And to that problem we will presently address ourselves.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge Mehsana found the appellant, a Government servant employed in the Sachivalaya at Gandhinagar, guilty of serious charges of sexual misbehaviour with two young girls (aged about 10 or 12) and convicted the appellant for the offence of rape, outraging the modesty of women, and wrongful confinement. The appeal carried to the High Court substantially failed. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully confining the girls. The High Court also sustained the order of conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty of the two girls. With regard to the more serious charge of rape on one of the girls, the High Court came to the conclusion that what was established by evidence was an offence of attempt to commit rape and not of rape. Accordingly the conviction under Section 376 was altered into one under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has preferred the present appeal with special leave.