Observation facilitates justice

Rape is a heinous crime. Perhaps more heinous than murder which could be an act of violence in a moment of rage. But rape is a cold-blooded annihilation of body and soul.
A rape victim is violated twice, once when she is sexually assaulted and the second time when she is made to relive the trauma in describing the details of humiliation in court.
Given the stigma attached to rape and the low conviction rate, it needs exceptional courage on the part of a victim and her family to report the case to the police.Waiting to see the culprit brought to justice is even more traumatic.
The country's criminal justice system does not work in favour of women, because of which only 20 per cent of rape cases get reported and the conviction rate is even lower. The police, the investigating agencies and the doctor who certifies rape are often insensitive, even hostile.
With all these odds, if a woman still accuses a man of rape the charge is unlikely to be trumped-up. There is far too much a woman puts at stake when she alleges rape.
It is in realisation of this that the Supreme Court made the observation that a victim's testimony ought to be enough to convict a rapist.
The verdict will go a long way in securing justice for rape victims. Given the Indian reality, where women often conceal rape because it involves their and their families' prestige, the case is reported to the police much later, especially if the perpetrator of the crime is a relative or someone known to the family.
Crucial evidence (especially medical proof of rape) is lost because of the delay. The case is often lost on minor technicalities.In such a case, if the woman's testimony is taken as enough it would help.
If all the evidence on record shows that the victim does not have a motive to falsely implicate the accused there should be no problem in accepting her version to nail the culprit. The court's ruling is an attempt at making the law victim-friendly.