Silence, Endurance, and Continued Cohabitation Are Not Indicia Of Fabrication For Abused Women: Supreme Court

"The reticence of a victim of a sexual offence, or of a person compelled to witness one, may spring from fear, from shame, from social constraint or from a well-founded apprehension of the consequences of speaking, and delay or silence attributable to such causes is not a badge of falsehood." Supreme Court of India, in a detailed judgment dated September 24, 2026, has firmly ruled that the silence of a victim of domestic and sexual abuse cannot be converted into an instrument for the acquittal of the perpetrator.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that courts must avoid the "superficial appeal" of assuming a single natural manner in which a woman in such circumstances ought to behave. The bench categorically observed that the silence, endurance, and continued cohabitation of abused women are common features of their reality and must not be used to impeach their credibility or to suggest fabrication of the offense.

Understanding The Dynamics Of Coercive Control

The court underscored that different individuals react to trauma, terror, and abuse in profoundly non-uniform and unpredictable ways. The judgment emphasizes that there is no standard model of response against which a victim's or witness's conduct can be measured. When a victim or a witness does not react in the manner expected by a court, their evidence cannot be condemned as false; such an approach would be "wholly unrealistic." The Court emphasized that courts must guard against assessing credibility through the lens of "stereotyped assumptions" regarding how a woman should conduct herself when subjected to or witnessing violence.

The Reality Of Domestic Captivity

Addressing the case of a mother who failed to report the sexual assault and killing of her child for a period, the bench described her state as one of "entrapment." The Court noted that a woman who is economically dependent, illiterate, and subjected to sustained domestic violence is not a "free agent" who can simply walk into a police station. Such victims are effectively held in a condition of "prolonged captivity and coercive control."

Court Rejects Mechanical Application Of Conduct

The bench referred to the cycle of violence and the concept of "learned helplessness" to explain why victims often remain in the abusive home. The Court observed that silence and continued cohabitation are often "tragically representative" of the experience of abused women rather than signs of complicity or falsehood. To equate such silence with acquiescence would be a "perverse use" of reality to grant immunity to those who prey upon vulnerable individuals within the privacy of the home.

"If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim."

The Strategy Of Attacking Victim Credibility

The Court highlighted a recurring and reprehensible trend where perpetrators, having secured dominance through terror and isolation, press that very secrecy into service during legal proceedings. By attacking the victim's credibility based on her failure to report the incident earlier, the perpetrator attempts to convert the victim's own trauma-induced silence into proof of innocence. The bench ruled that a court must remain "vigilant not to lend itself to this stratagem," ensuring that the disabilities imposed by the abuser do not enure to his benefit.

Court Finds Credibility Despite Delays

In the present matter, the Court held that the mother's account, despite the initial silence, was corroborated by "objective physical findings" and other material particulars. The Court reiterated that even when contradictions and omissions exist, the court's duty is to "sift the truth from the falsehood" and separate the grain from the chaff, rather than discarding testimony entirely. Finding the core of the witness's testimony consistent with medical evidence, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the conviction for the sexual assault and murder of the child, while commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life without the possibility of remission.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026