Supreme Court Directs CBI To Produce Third Manipur Sexual Violence Victim For Trial Testimony

New Delhi, November 4: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce the third victim in the 2023 Manipur violence case for recording of her testimony before the special trial court at Guwahati. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana fixed November 13, 16 and 19 for the deposition. The agency must ensure she is present on those dates.

The direction came in the Court-monitored proceedings on the 2023 sexual violence incident. Investigation was transferred to the central agency, and trial was shifted out of Manipur. The Bench took stock of where the oral evidence stands.

One victim has already been cross-examined. The second victim is still deposing. The third victim's deposition has yet to be recorded in full.

Those three days in November have been set aside for her examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The matter will come up again after November 19, by which time the trial court record is expected to show progress. The order records no view on the merits. It is limited to securing presence and recording evidence under the prescribed procedure.

Lawyers familiar with the proceedings said a block of consecutive dates allows the deposition to proceed without long gaps. Breaks can affect recall and add to stress for witnesses. The Court left the actual assessment of evidence to the trial judge.

Trial in Manipur violence case continues in Guwahati

The trial is being held before a special court in Guwahati. The Supreme Court had earlier moved it out of Manipur in view of the situation in the State at the relevant time and to ensure a fair process for the prosecution and the accused. Records from Manipur were placed before the Guwahati court for trial in accordance with law.

Investigation was entrusted to the CBI. The agency filed its reports before the competent court after inquiry into the incident, the role attributed to individual accused, and the sequence of events as disclosed by witnesses and material collected. Charges were framed on that basis. The prosecution began with formal witnesses and then moved to the victims, whose accounts form the central part of the case.

At present the focus is on oral evidence. Cross-examination of the first victim is complete, which means her examination-in-chief and cross-examination have been recorded by the trial judge and form part of the record. The second victim is presently deposing, with questions and answers taken down by the court and with opportunity to the defence to cross-examine after the examination-in-chief.

Depositions of victims of sexual offences are generally recorded in-camera. The public is excluded. Only the judge, court staff, the prosecutor, defence counsel and the accused, subject to directions on screening, remain present. Identity is not disclosed in the proceedings or in reporting. The trial judge has to ensure that questions in cross-examination are relevant, are not put to harass the witness, and conform to the law on evidence in sexual offence cases.

How courts assess rape victim testimony

Evidence of victims in sexual offence trials carries particular weight under Indian law. The law treats rape victim testimony as capable in itself of sustaining a conviction where it is credible, consistent and inspires the confidence of the court. Corroboration is not a mandatory rule, though courts routinely look for support from medical evidence, surrounding circumstances and other witnesses where available.

That approach has been applied across categories of sexual offences. Questions often arise about delay in lodging complaints and minor contradictions between statements recorded at different stages. Courts have explained how to test the sole testimony of victim in 354 IPC cases, insisting on consistency and a clear account. They have also held that the sole testimony of victim is sufficient in POCSO cases where it survives careful scrutiny. Each case still turns on its own facts, and the trial judge must give reasons for accepting or rejecting the evidence.

That Indian framework stands apart from foreign material sometimes cited online. Searches for MK Ultra victim testimony lead to a different American history and a different set of procedures. The trial record that includes victim 1 Sandusky testimony was tested under Pennsylvania rules of evidence. Neither offers guidance here, where evidence must be recorded directly before the Guwahati court and tested by cross-examination with reference to the Penal Code provisions in force at the time and the Indian Evidence Act.

Protection during that process remains a stated concern. The Supreme Court has in these proceedings passed directions on security, travel and support for victims and their families. The CBI has been asked to coordinate with the State authorities and the trial court for safe travel to Guwahati, accommodation where needed, and presence on the fixed dates. Identities are not to be revealed, and the deposition is to proceed in conditions that reduce intimidation.

Distance has been a recurring problem. Victims travel from Manipur to Assam, often with family members. Adjournments follow when a witness is unwell or unable to travel. Fixing three dates together is meant to finish this leg of evidence in one stretch and avoid repeated travel.