The pledge for a women friendly court

The rate of violence against women is increasing year after year. According to Report of Bangladesh Mahila Parishad more than 4,500 women and children were subjected to rape, acid attack, physical torture, suicide and other forms of violence in 2014 alone. The report showed at least 939 women were raped and 99 killed while 431 and 236 were tortured and killed respectively because of dowry (The Daily Star, January 03, 2015). This is happening because of lack of proper implementation of our existing laws, delay and acute weaknesses in our judicial system. 

In the aftermath of rape, the victim faces further persecution. She is being victimized during the investigation, preparation of medical report, hearing, examination, cross-examination. Facing all these makes her only vulnerable. In this regard, the Government should set up a victim friendly court. For instance in West Bengal Province, India, has already set up a Court to deal with the crimes against women in 2013. [Report BBC Online, January 24, 2013]. 

According to medical practitioners, victim is to be examined within 24 hours of the incident; otherwise the likelihood of tracing injury decreases considerably.  Therefore, the Government should establish Community Clinics comprising of female staff in every Union Parisad. 

As per Women & Children Repression Prevention Act 2000, an aggrieved party may appeal to the High Court Division within 60 days from the date of passing verdict (section 28). But there is no provision of time limit to adjudicate the appeal. Most of the cases in our Apex Court takes huge time e.g. State v  Sukur Ali [2004] 9 BLC (HCD) 238 was started in 2001 but final verdict came in 2010.

In our judicial system the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It seems unjust that the victim now has to prove how she was raped, when and by whom she was brutally tortured. Moreover, in most of the cases, the victims are found to be poor and can't afford an efficient lawyer. It is high time to come out from this practice.  The alleged man should be the one to prove that he is innocent. It is to be mentioned that some civil law countries like France and Italy abides by this principle. 

Another important aspect is that our Evidence Act, 1872 allows an accused to question the character of the victim to defend himself during trial [Section155 (4)]. This section rather comes to the victim as double blow. Indian government has already amended the provision following a recent incident where the victim died of heart attack in a court, as counsels of the accused were raising question about her character. Recently the Law Commission has decided to prepare a draft proposal for the new Evidence Act (The Daily Star, May 28, 2015). However the Government should immediately repeal it so that the perpetrator can't avail the advantage of this draconian section.