Rape case: is claim itself an evidence here?

The presence of semen on the private parts - clinches the case - as it establishes s*xual intercourse took place. The only respite that the accused would have in such case is either to discredit the DNA Match etc. or to prove consent. However the absence of semen may happen due to a number of reasons and is not always fatal. Lapse on part of IO to take adequate samples and send them to Forensics. Tampering with the sample at the Malkhana. Loss of sample etc.  In case where such match is not there - court is on the watch to seperate the chaff from the grain. 

In Rape cases after end number of judgments the testimony of rape victim is accorded great weightage - and if corroborated - can solely lead to a conviction. Her statements oftenly recorded in 164 - are used to corroborate as well as contradict her at trial. Independant testimony is not normally insisted upon as the same is affront to common sense as rapes don't happen in full public gaze but clandestine secrecy. 

mr. bharat

there are certain presumption in rape case. these are:

1] when the woman complaints, THERE MUST BE A RAPE.(this is the basis or foundation    of all later presumption)

2] if there is a rape and if semen not found, it means it is lost.

3] if there is a rape and if individual testimony is not found, it is ok because    rapes don't happen in full public gaze but clandestine secrecy.

*red color shows the basic presumption or fixed idea.

you see there is a basic presumption that rape happened and how that basic presumption led inference from other evidences in a particuler direction.those inferences will lead , in turn, to a particular conviction.

but the main problem is that: why we should presume the following:

 "when the woman complaints, THERE MUST BE A RAPE."

what may be the reason behind this presumption?

i think, there is no reason behind this presumption. it is a reasonless presumption.

this reasonless fundamental presumption will lead us to the conviction which may be wrong.

so i think this practice is not a good one as it will lead to a wrong conviction.

dear arnab,

I appreciate your feelings.It is true that when ever a lady complains a rape,she becomes 'the victim'.Actually ,when these laws were enacted our female population was really victim.most of the women were not vocal as they are today.we can say they were 'sati sabitri' type.But after our national economy took a U turn that is from 'closed economy' to 'open economy,a racket of 'BAD WOMAN' appeared in the stage,with lesser values only to earn money. In case of 498a cases we find that no investigation is done by police before arrest of husband and/ or family menbers.these are all draconian gender biased laws. in fact only 2% of 498a cases are

true. still law makers /keepers are eager to run these type of laws due to women group's pressure.some changes are surely needed to run the system transperent.

these lawmakers are vote hungry corrupt politicians. what can be expected from them?

if semen is absent how court will come to know that rape ever happened?  in absense of semen, why court should consider  the testimony of the rape victim solely? it is trusting an allegation without supporting evidence. how could it deliver justice?

besides this kind of practice violates art.14: equality before law. here the rape victim is given special privilage where it is stated in art.14, that no special previlage should be granted to any party. so this kind of practice is unconstitutional.

There is a small old anecdote::

One man was travelling in a train coupe (for two), he was middle aged sober kind of a person (a la Sanjeev Kumar in Sholay) with a cover Shawl on his chest.

A girl boards his coupe and tries to seduce him, he does not oblige. Finally she tears off her clothes and shouts rape rape. The RPF persons comes and starts scolding the person, at the next station without hearing the man they force him to alight the train and take him to Police Station. Where he was further humiliated. Finally the man asks the police inspector to remove his shawl. He had no hands !!