In Mohd.

Habib Vs State, the Delhi High Court allowed a rapist to go scot-free merely because there were
no marks of injury on his penis- which the High Court presumed was a indication of no resistance. The
most important facts such as the age of the victim (being seven years) and that she had suffered a
ruptured hymen and the bite marks on her body were not considered by the High Court. Even the eye-
witnesses who witnessed this ghastly act, could not sway the High Courts judgment.

Another classic example of the judicial pronouncements in rape cases is the case of Bhanwari Devi,
wherein a judge remarked that the victim could not have been raped since she was a dalit while the
accused hailed from an upper caste- who would not stoop to sexual relations with a dalit.

In another instance of conscience stirring cases, Sakina- a poor sixteen year old girl from Kerala, who
was lured to Ernakulam with the promise of finding her a good job, where she was sold and forced into
prostitution. There for eighteen long months she was held captive and raped by clients. Finally she was
rescued by the police- acting on a complaint filed by her neighbour.

With the help of her parents and an Advocate, Sakina filed a suit in the High Court- giving the names of
the upper echelons of the bureaucracy and society of Kerala.

The suit was squashed by the High Court, while observing that it is improbable to believe that a man
who desired sex on payment would go to a reluctant woman; and that the version of the victim was not
so sacrosanct as to be taken for granted.

Whereas, in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh8, the Supreme Court has advised the lower judiciary, that
even if the victim girl is shown to be habituated to sex, the Court should not describe her to be of loose
character.

The Supreme Court has in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar N. Mardikar, held that "the
unchastity of a woman does not make her open to any and every person to violate her person as and
when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate her person against
her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Therefore merely because she is of easy virtue,
her evidence cannot be thrown overboard."

Also the Bandit Queen case10, which depicts the tragic story of a village girl. Phoolan Devi- who was
exposed from an early age to the lust and brutality of some men. She was married to a man old enough
to be her father. She was beaten and raped by him. She was later thrown out of the village- accused of
luring boys of the upper caste. She was arrested by the police and subjected to indignation and
humiliation. Was also kidnapped and raped by the leader of dacoits and later by the leader of a gang of
Thakurs- who striped her naked and paraded her in front of the entire village. This is truly one story that
shows the apathy of the existing society.
In Chairman, Railway Board Vs. Chandrima Das, a practicing Advocate of the Calcutta High Court filed a
petition under Article.226 of the Constitution of India against the various railway authorities of the
eastern railway claiming compensation for the victim (Smt. Hanufa Khatoon)- a Bangladesh national-
who was raped at the Howrah Station, by the railway security men. The High Court awarded Rs.10 lacs
as compensation.

An appeal was preferred and it was contended by the state that:

a) The railway was not liable to pay the compensation to the victim for she was a foreigner.

b) That the remedy for compensation lies in the domain of private law and not public law. i.e. that the
victim should have approached the Civil Court for seeking damages; and should have not come to the
High Court under Article.226.

Considering the above said contentions, the Supreme Court observed:

"Where public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights
or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would be avoidable under public law. It was more so,
when it was not a mere violation of any ordinary right, but the violation of fundamental rights was
involved- as the petitioner was a victim of rape, which a violation of fundamental right of every person
guaranteed under Article.21 of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court also held that the relief can be granted to the victim for two reasons- firstly, on the
ground of domestic jurisprudence based on the Constitutional provisions; and secondly, on the ground
of Human Rights Jurisprudence based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which has
international recognition as the Moral Code of Conduct- adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nation.

Suryanelli Rape Case

The Suryanelli rape case (also called the Suryanelli sex scandal) refers to a case of kidnapping and
subsequent rape of a 16-year-old school girl from Suryanelli, Kerala, India, in 1996.The girl was allegedly
lured with the promise of marriage on 16 January 1996 and kidnapped. She was allegedly raped by 37 of
the 42 accused persons, over a period of 40 days. The remaining had abetted the crime.After P.J. Kurien,
the then Union Minister and later Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman belonging to UDF led by Congress
party, was named, the issue was politicised, due to a then upcoming general election.Several women's
rights activists like K. Ajitha and Suja Susan George, and women's organisations, like NFIW and Anweshi,
have taken an interest in the case.

On 2 September 2000, a Special Court in Kottayam found 35 of 39, of those who faced trial, to be guilty
of various charges. On 12 July 2002, the prime accused - Dharmarajan was found guilty of various
charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he left jail on bail on 25 October 2002 and then
disappeared.[10] On 20 January 2005, the Kerala High Court acquitted all 35 convicts, except prime
accused Dharmarajan, due to lack of evidence collaborating the victim's statement. The court found her
to be untrustworthy. The verdict was criticised by women's rights activists. In January 2013, the
Supreme Court of India repealed the acquittals awarded by the High Court and ordered a fresh hearing.
In early February 2013, Dharmarajan appeared in a TV interview and said that P. J. Kurien was involved
and the police covered it up. This stirred a controversy and politicians began demanding Kurien's
resignation.The High Court of Kerala has discharged Prof Kurien from all charges on 4 April 2007.The
Supreme Court also confirmed it. It has been refuted in Indian Parliament too. Soon after, Dharmarajan
was arrested. In May, he retracted his previous statements. Kurien was acquitted by the Kerala High
Court.

On 4 April 2014, the Kerala High Court upheld Dharmarajan's life sentence and acquitted 7 of the 35
surviving accused. As of October 2015, the case is in appeal at the Supreme Court.

2012 Delhi gang rape and murder

The 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case involved a rape and fatal assault that occurred on 16
December 2012 in Munirka, a neighbourhood in South Delhi. The incident took place when Jyoti Singh, a
23-year-old female physiotherapy intern, was beaten, gang-raped, and tortured in a private bus in which
she was travelling with her male friend. There were six others in the bus, including the driver, all of
whom raped the woman and beat her friend. Eleven days after the assault she was transferred to a
hospital in Singapore for emergency treatment but died two days later. The incident generated
widespread national and international coverage and was widely condemned, both in India and abroad.
Subsequently, public protests against the state and central governments for failing to provide adequate
security for women took place in New Delhi, where thousands of protesters clashed with security forces.
Similar protests took place in major cities throughout the country. Since Indian law does not allow the
press to publish a rape victim's name, the victim was widely known as Nirbhaya, meaning "fearless", and
her struggle and death became a symbol of women's resistance to rape around the world.

All the accused were arrested and charged with sexual assault and murder. One of the accused, Ram
Singh, died in police custody from possible suicide on 11 March 2013.[8] According to some published
reports, the police say Ram Singh hanged himself, but defence lawyers and his family allege he was
murdered.[9] The rest of the accused went on trial in a fast-track court; the prosecution finished
presenting its evidence on 8 July 2013.[10] The juvenile was convicted of rape and murder and given the
maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment in a reform facility, as per the Juvenile Justice Act.[11]
On 10 September 2013, the four remaining adult defendants - Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, Akshay
Thakur and Mukesh Singh (Ram Singh's brother) - were found guilty of rape and murder and three days
later were sentenced to death by hanging.In the death reference case and hearing appeals on 13 March
2014, Delhi High Court upheld the guilty verdict and the death sentences. On 18 December 2019, the
Supreme Court of India rejected the final appeals of the condemned perpetrators of the attack. The four
adult convicts were hanged on 20 March 2020.