Penal Code, 1860 – s.376– Prosecutrix raped by respondentaccused– Trial court convicted the respondent– High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondent– On appeal, held: In the present case evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is supported by medical evidence and also by the evidence of PW-4, who saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence– Delay in registration of F.I.R. was properly explained– This was not considered by High Court– Judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court convicting the respondent restored– However, in the instant case, the occurrence was of the year 1993 i.e. about 25 years ago– Having regard to the passage of time and discretion vested with the Court as per proviso to s.376(1) (prior to 2013 amendment) to impose imprisonment for a term less than seven years, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on the respondent is reduced to four years– Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.375, Sixthly – Rape – Consent of victim – When not relevant – Held: Under s.375, Sixthly, a man is said to commit rape with or without the consent of prosecutrix, when she is under sixteen years of age – Prosecutrix being aged 12 years at the time of the occurrence, her consent or otherwise was of no relevance. Evidence – Rape – Age of victim – School documents as proof for – Appreciation of.
Evidence – Rape – Absence of external injuries on the person of the rape victim – Effect of – Held: Absence of injury on the person of the rape victim does not lead to an inference that the incident had taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix – It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Further, even in the absence of external injury, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to rape, cannot be ignored. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the absence of external injury on the person of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Absence of injury on the person of the victim of rape does not lead to an inference that the accused did not commit forcible sexual intercourse. Even in the absence of external injury, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to rape, cannot be ignored. In the present case, evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is supported by the medical evidence and also by the evidence of PW-4, who saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. [Paras 9-10] [630-G-H; 631-A-B]
1.2 The school registers are the authentic documents being maintained in the official course, entitled to credence of much weight unless proved otherwise. Considering the evidence of PW-8, Head master/Head teacher of Primary School and the school certificate produced by him i.e. Ex.P/13-A, age of the victim has to be taken as 12 years at the time of occurrence. As per Section 375 IPC, a man is said to commit rape, Sixthly - “With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age”. The prosecutrix being aged 12 years at the time of the occurrence, her consent or otherwise was of no relevance to bring the offence within the meaning of Section 375 IPC. The High Court ignored the material evidence adduced by the prosecution and erred in reversing the conviction of the respondent-accused. [Paras 12, 13] [631-G; 632-A-B]
1.3 The delay in registration of the FIR was properly explained, which was not considered by the High Court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Paras 14, 15] [632-D-E]
1.4 Prior to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (w.e.f. 3rd February, 2013) under Section 376(1) IPC, the sentence of imprisonment for a term shall not be less than 7 years extending for life. However, as per the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC (prior to amendment) discretion is vested with the Court to impose imprisonment for a term of less than seven years for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. In this case, the occurrence was of the year 1993 i.e. about 25 years ago. Having regard to the passage of time and other facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on the respondent-accused is reduced to a period of four years. [Para 16] 632-F-G]
B.C Deva @ Dyava v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 122 : [2007] 8 SCR 509 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.