In Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

MANU/SC/0075/1980 : [1981]1SCR206 , this Court, speaking per majority Chandrachud, CJ. angulated harmony between the fundamental rights and the directive principles as goals of social revolution under rule of law and held that "there is no sphere of public life where delay can defeat justice with more telling effect than the one in which the common man seeks the realisation of his aspirations. The promise of a better tomorrow must be fulfilled today, day after tomorrow it runs the risk of being conveniently forgotten. Indeed so many tomorrows have come and gone without a leaf turning that today there is a lurking danger that people will work out their destiny through the compelled cult of their own 'dirty hands'. Words bandied about in marbled halls say much but fail to achieve as much." n this connection, she has also referred to S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0550/1996 : 1996CriLJ3237 where the Court referred to the following words of Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 153 :

"............... It would certainly save the Judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a detect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, bat also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature ....... A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.

In Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976, which defines rape as having 'unlawful' intercourse with a woman without her consent, the word 'unlawful' is to be treated as mere surplusage and not as meaning 'outside marriage', since it is clearly unlawful to have sexual intercourse with any woman without her consent."
: Bhupinder Sharma
Vs.

Respondent: State of Himachal Prades

In cases of gang rape, the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation 1 in relation to Section 376 (2) (g), I.P.C. appears to have been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace ofgang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rapeand convict them under Section 376, I.P.C.

The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal jugglery. A similar view w In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record 'adequate and special reasons' in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula, can be imposed. In the case at hand, only reason which seems to have weighed with the trial Court is that the present accused appellant had not actually committed the rape. That cannot be a ground to warrant lesser sentence; more so in view of Explanation (1) to Sub-section (2) of Section 376. By operation of a deeming provision a member of a group of persons who have acted in furtherance of their common intention per se attract the minimum sentence. Section 34 has been applied by both the trial Court, and the High Court, to conclude that rape was committed in furtherance of common intention. Not only was the accusedappellant present, but also he was waiting for his turn, as evident from the fact that he was in the process of undressing. The evidence in this regard is cogent, credible and trustworthy- Since no other just or special reason was given by the trial Court nor could any such be shown as to what ware the reasons to warrant a lesser sentence, the High Court was justified in awarding the mini mum prescribed sentence. That being the position, this appeal is dismissed. 1. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal jugglery. A similar view was expressed by this Court in Rafiq v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0196/1980 : 1980CriLJ1344 with some anguish. The same was echoed again in Bharwada Bhogiabhai and Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0090/1983 : 1983CriLJ1096 . It was observed in the said case that in the Indian Setting refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations

of Vivian Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0036/1951 : 1952CriLJ547 were. ''The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge...".

Bhupinder sharma vs state of hp 2. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory
requirement is that the Court has to record 'adequate and special reasons' in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula, can be imposed.

3. Md iqbal and anr vs state of jharkhand

There was no prohibition in law to convict Accused of rape on basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix and law did not require that her statement be corroborated by statements of other witnesses - In statements of Accused/Appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., only bold statement had been made by both Accused/Appellants that they were innocent - No explanation had been furnished by either of them as to why prosecutrix had deposed against them and involved them in such heinous crime - Thus there was not any cogent reason to interfere with findings of fact recorded by Courts below Appeals dismissed.

4. The court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in the isolation. Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtue/unchaste woman that itself cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion complained of. 4. Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed as a crime
involving aggression which leads to the domination of the prosecutrix. In case of rape besides the psychological trauma, there is also social stigma to the victim. Majority of rapes are not sudden occurrences but are generally well planned as in this case. Social stigma has a devastating effect on rape victim. It is violation of her right of privacy. Such victims need physical, mental, psychological and social rehabilitation. Physically she must feel safe in the society, mentally she needs help to restore her lost self esteem, psychologically she needs help to overcome her depression and socially, she needs to be accepted back in the social fold. Rape is blatant violation of women's bodily integrity. 5. In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0481/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 2281, this Court has observed that even if a woman is of easy virtues or use to

sexual intercourse, it cannot be a licence for any person to commit rape and it further held: 6. MOST RELEVANT 1) A woman, howsoever dissolute she may be, would not ordinarily consent to insulting, humiliating and repulsive act of sexual intercourse on her by a number of persons, as if she were a chattel for public use. The law recognises that a woman even of easy virtue, or even a whore for that matter, has personal dignity and honour. She cannot be violated, if only because of her lowly profession. A presumption has been enacted in section 114A of the Evidence Act which says that in a case, inter alia,of gang rape, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. Hence, the legal position is that if the fact of sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, the evidence of the woman in a case of gang rape that she did not consent to sexual intercourse would have to be believed and it will not help the defence merely to show that the woman was of easy virtue. It is true that the presumption about want of consent is not conclusive. Evidence may still be given to disprove it. But in the absence of any evidence of disproof, there is no option with the Court but to raise a presumption about non-consent if circumstances for raising the presumption under section 114A exist. It must, however, be conceded that immoral character would still not be an absolutely irrelevant circumstance. It may render the story itself as incredible. It may take away probative force of the story, told as it is by a woman with no scruples or morals. It may be difficult to believe a woman of immoral character if she says that some persons had sexual intercourse with her unless there existed satisfactory proof in support of the story of sexual intercourse.1 Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Cr LJ 715 MP. 2) International human rights 3) International human rights are the rights a person is entitled to from the birth by the virtue of his/her being a human, and these rights are unvarying and fundamental across the globe, standardised by International Bill of Rights. In 1948, the 56 members of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ecognized as one of the most influential and inspirational statements of human rights, the UDHR. Human rights are the rights a person has simply because he or she is a human being. Human rights are inalienable-you cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease being human. Human rights are indivisible-you cannot be denied a right because it is less important than another right. Human rights are interdependent-all human rights are part of a complementary framework. Rhonda Howard has worded that, "...dignity is not a claim...rather it's granted at birth or on incorporation into the community...it's the inner moral worth of a person..." Dignity is, therefore, the inviolable premise of human rights. The following list does not provide an exhaustive list that per se secure the right of a sexual minority. But since the adoption of the UDHR, the concept of human rights has entered popular consciousness of the world.

4) Article 3 provides the right to life, dignity and security 5) The right to freedom from discrimination is by Articles 2 and 7 6) Article 12 maintains that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, not to attacks upon his honour or reputation

7) The right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhuman treatment is protected by Article 17 8) Article 22 states "Everyone is entitled to the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity." Article 23articulates the right to work, to choose employment, and to form labor unions. 9) Article 25 includes a person's right to a "standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." 10) Article 27 describes the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement. 11) Article 28 and 29 include the right to a social and international order that enables these rights to be realized and refers to one's duties to one's iCCr
The International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an important appendage to the UDHR. Both the criminalistion and the legal invisibility of homosexual relations affects the rights of lesbians and gays to equal treatment, marriage, opportunities and access in areas such as employment, housing, public services, pensions, health benefits, etc. Some relevant provisions of the Covenant are as follows: Non-discrimination for clauses for equality is guaranteed in Articles 2 and 26 The right to privacy is protected by Article 17 The right to freedom from torture or cruel or inhuman treatment is protected by Article 14. The right to freedom from arbitrary arrest is protected by Article 8 The right to freedom of movement is protected by Article 12 The right to freedom of expression is protected by Article 19

7) Blatant Violation of Constitution.