In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Gujarat High Court order that had quashed a rape case based on an “amicable settlement” between the accused and the complainant. The apex court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, observed that there was no evidence to show the illiterate rape survivor had understood the settlement terms before her thumbprint was taken, prompting concerns about due process in cases involving vulnerable individuals.
The case came to the Supreme Court on appeal after the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Samir J. Dave, ruled in September 2023 that a rape case should be dismissed due to a settlement affidavit filed in court. According to the High Court, the affidavit stated that the dispute had been “amicably resolved,” making a criminal trial seemingly unnecessary. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that critical elements were missing, including proof that the complainant, an illiterate Adivasi woman, had any understanding of the settlement terms, which were in Gujarati, a language unknown to her.
Justice Oka expressed strong reservations, asking, “How can the High Court allow this without even calling the victim? There is no statement that the woman was informed of the contents. She is illiterate, and there’s no evidence that the contents were explained. Someone must do this, yet she merely put her thumbprint, without any third-party endorsement verifying she understood.”
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the appellant, pointed out that the complainant never agreed to any settlement, labeling the affidavit as unreliable. According to Jaising, the settlement process bypassed safeguards to ensure that the complainant was fully informed, highlighting that the affidavit was in Gujarati and never explained to her. “The survivor is an illiterate Adivasi woman who never consented to this so-called settlement. How can the High Court endorse this, and will this court allow such practices?” Jaising argued.
In response to these revelations, the Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have conducted a thorough verification to determine whether the settlement was genuine and whether the complainant fully understood it. The apex court outlined that an affidavit executed by an illiterate individual should ideally include an endorsement from a neutral third party affirming that its contents were explained to the signatory.
The Supreme Court mandated the High Court to reassess the validity of the settlement in the presence of the complainant, who would be required to appear in court to confirm her awareness and understanding of the agreement. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the High Court could, if necessary, initiate an inquiry to verify how the affidavit was obtained and to ensure the thumbprint was not taken under misleading or coercive circumstances.
Justice Oka underscored the importance of a procedural safeguard, stating, “Normally, an affidavit filed by an illiterate individual with a thumb impression must have an endorsement from a third party. The High Court should have required the woman to be present in court for verification.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Khanna, along with Advocate Savita Singh, represented the accused, while Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli and Advocate Swati Ghildiyal appeared for the State of Gujarat. In the proceedings, arguments centered on the need for meticulous verification when settling cases involving vulnerable complainants. The Supreme Court advised that the High Court could appoint a judicial officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding the affidavit.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the Gujarat High Court’s decision, remanding the matter for a fresh review. The apex court directed that the High Court proceed with caution, ensuring that any settlement in sensitive cases such as this is transparent, verifiable, and fully understood by all parties involved.
